Case Digest (G.R. No. 177438)
Facts:
Amada Resterio, G.R. No. 177438, September 24, 2012, First Division, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court. The petitioner was criminally charged in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Mandaue City for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law) for allegedly making, drawing and issuing a ChinaBank check dated June 3, 2002 in the amount of P50,000.00 payable to Bernardo T. Villadolid, knowing there were insufficient funds. The information alleged that the check was dishonored for reason "ACCT. CLOSED" and that despite notice and demand the petitioner failed to redeem the check or arrange payment within five banking days.After trial the MTCC found petitioner guilty, sentenced her to pay a fine of P50,000.00 and civil liabilities of P50,000.00 plus attorney’s fees and filing-fee reimbursement. The petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MTCC conviction. She then filed a petition for review to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing inter alia that the prosecution failed to prove all the elements of BP Blg. 22 and urging application of Elvira Yu Oh v. Court of Appeals. On December 4, 2006 the CA denied the petition and affirmed the conviction.
The petitioner brought the case to the Supreme Court. The issues framed during appeal centered on whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the essential elements of BP Blg. 22 — particularly the element of knowledge of insufficiency — and whether the notices of dishonor had been properly served by registered mail. The prosecution relied on registry return receipts to prove mailing; the private complainant testified the check was dishonored and presented...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt all the essential elements of a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, particularly the element of knowledge of insufficiency of funds/credit?
- When notice of dishonor is sent by registered mail, do registry return receipts alone suffice to prove service of the written notice on the drawer/maker/issuer?
- Does the fact that a check was issued as collateral or belonged to another negate criminal liability under B.P. Blg. 22?
- If criminal liability is not established, may civil liability for the face...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)