G.R. No. 196853 - Chua vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 196853)

Pertinent Dates and Procedural History

Between August and December 1993, Chua issued 54 postdated PSBank checks to See under a rediscounting agreement. See deposited the checks, which were dishonored for insufficient funds or closed account, and served a written demand for payment. On December 23, 1993, See filed Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) criminal complaints. The MeTC found probable cause on April 25, 1994, and Chua’s trial began.

Issuance and Dishonor of Checks

Chua issued checks totaling millions of pesos, all dishonored upon presentment. See claimed to have served a demand letter dated December 10, 1993 and, later, one dated November 30, 1993. Despite demands, Chua did not remedy payment, prompting criminal prosecution under BP 22.

Introduction and Dispute Over Demand Letters

During MeTC trial, the prosecution offered the December 10, 1993 letter (photocopy) as Exhibit “B,” which Chua objected to for lack of proof of receipt. Years later, the prosecution moved to reopen its case to introduce the November 30, 1993 demand letter as newly discovered evidence, which the court initially refused to admit but which nonetheless entered the record as Exhibit “SSS.”

Trial Court Proceedings (MeTC)

Chua filed a Demurrer to Evidence, challenging the authenticity and probative value of both demand letters. The MeTC denied his demurrer (January 12, 2007) and subsequent reconsideration, then convicted Chua of all 54 counts on May 12, 2008, relying on the stipulation of the letters’ existence and Chua’s signature to presume his receipt and knowledge of dishonor.

Regional Trial Court and Appellate Decisions

The RTC (July 1, 2009) affirmed the MeTC, finding all BP 22 elements proved, especially knowledge of insufficient funds based on the November 30, 1993 letter and within-five-day nonpayment. The CA (November 11, 2010) likewise affirmed, rejecting Chua’s claims that the letter was fabricated or that its late introduction invalidated it.

Issues for Supreme Court Review

Whether the courts correctly applied the presumption of knowledge of insufficiency based solely on the letter’s date in the absence of proof of actual receipt.
Whether the November 30, 1993 letter qualifies as newly discovered evidence under the Rules of Court.

Applicable Law

BP 22 prescribes penal liability for issuing a check without sufficient funds, with Section 2 creating a prima facie presumption of knowledge if, after receiving written notice of dishonor, the drawer fails to pay or arrange payment within five banking days. The Supreme Court applies the 1987 Constitution in reviewing lower-court decisions post-1990.

Legal Standards for BP 22 Violations

To prove BP 22 liability, the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt: (1) issuance of the check, (2) knowledge of insufficient funds at issuance, and (3) dishonor by the drawee bank for insufficient funds or closed account. Section 2’s presumption of knowledge arises only upon proof of notice of dishonor and the five-day failure to arrange payment.

Analysis of Notice of Dishonor and Demand Letter

The November 30, 1993 demand letter lacks any date of actual receipt by Chua, preventing calculation of the critical five-day period. No legal presumption allows equating the letter’s date with receipt. The prosecution failed to present evidence—such as registry receipts or witness testimony—of when Chua received the notice.

Evaluation of Stipulation by Defense Counsel

Chua’s counsel stipulated only to the physical existence of the letter and Chua’s signature, not to receipt or acknowledgment. Such a stipulation cannot estop Chua from contesting actual receipt. His consistent denial of having received the letter further underscores the need for proof beyond the document’s mere date and signature.

Assessment of Newly Discovered Evidence Claim

The November 30, 1993 letter was known to See at the time of filing the