G.R. No. 200090 - San Mateo vs. People

In May and July 2005, Erlinda C. San Mateo ordered assorted yarns totaling P327,394.14 from ITSP International, Incorporated.
As partial payment for the yarns, she issued 11 postdated Metrobank checks amounting to P134,275.00.
The checks were drawn and issued in favor of ITSP through its Vice-President for Operations, Ravin A. Sehwani.

Prior to each check’s maturity, San Mateo either called or wrote to Sehwani requesting that he delay depositing the checks due to her alleged insufficient funds.
Sehwani, in consideration of their business relationship, complied with her request initially.
Despite her repeated requests to postpone deposit, San Mateo failed to settle her account on schedule.

Specific Instances of Dishonored Checks and Subsequent Attempts at Communication

On October 6, 2005, Sehwani deposited Metrobank Check No. 917604197 (dated July 25, 2005), which was dishonored due to insufficient funds.

Upon learning of this, Sehwani immediately informed San Mateo.
San Mateo requested a further delay, proposing to replace the dishonored check with a manager’s check, though she ultimately did not do so.

On November 7, 2005, after an earlier unsuccessful follow-up by Sehwani, a second check, No. 917604206 (dated July 21, 2005), was deposited but was halted by San Mateo’s stop payment order.
Subsequently, Sehwani proceeded to deposit the remaining checks, all of which were dishonored since the account had been closed.

Sehwani made several attempts to contact San Mateo.
Demand letters were sent to her last known address, but she remained unresponsive.
A registered mail demand letter, sent on November 23, 2005, was returned with notation indicating non-delivery and that San Mateo did not claim it despite repeated notices.

On June 5, 2006, San Mateo was charged with 11 counts of violation of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) 22 due to the dishonor of her checks.
During trial, she claimed that there was an agreement with Sehwani not to deposit her checks until she signaled a green light, asserting that Sehwani’s actions led to her account closure.
The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Taguig City, Branch 74, on August 27, 2009, found her guilty on 10 counts, sentencing her to imprisonment (six months per count) and ordering her to pay P134,275.00.

The court found the dishonor of Check No. 917604206 was due to her stop payment order rather than solely due to insufficient funds.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 70, affirmed the conviction on June 1, 2010, by establishing proper notice of dishonor through:

Her unjustified refusal to claim the demand letter sent by registered mail.
Her multiple letters requesting the deferral of check deposits.
Her own affidavit stating that Sehwani’s deposit actions led to account closure.

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision on August 23, 2011.
San Mateo then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari on March 1, 2012, raising issues concerning:

After an initial denial in April 2012 and a subsequent motion for reconsideration, the Supreme Court reinstated and ultimately granted the petition on July 16, 2012.

The determination of valuable consideration is examined through San Mateo’s admission that the checks were drawn in payment for the yarns ordered from ITSP International.

Whether the demand letter sent by Sehwani constituted the notice of dishonor required under B.P. 22.

The issue centers on whether evidence showed that San Mateo actually received and was aware of the notice of dishonor, especially given:

The initial letter left with a security guard at her residence.
The subsequent registered mail that was returned as unclaimed despite multiple notices.

This includes evaluating if San Mateo’s actions met all the statutory elements for a criminal conviction under B.P. 22, particularly regarding knowledge of insufficient funds through actual receipt of dishonor notice.