Title
Resterio vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 177438
Decision Date
Sep 24, 2012
Amada Resterio acquitted of B.P. 22 violation due to insufficient proof of written notice of dishonor, but civil liability for P50,000 upheld with interest.
violation
dishonored check
insufficient funds

Case Summary (G.R. No. 177438)

Factual Background

The information charged that on or about May, 2002 in Mandaue City petitioner made, drew and issued a ChinaBank check numbered AO141332 dated June 3, 2002 for P50,000 payable to Bernardo T. Villadolid, knowing that there were not sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank for payment. The private complainant presented evidence that the check was presented for payment through Bank of the Philippine Islands as collecting bank and was dishonored with a return memorandum stating the account was closed. The complainant also presented two registry return receipts for alleged written notices of dishonor dated June 17, 2002 and July 16, 2002. Petitioner testified that she did not own the check, that she had used a friend’s check as collateral for a loan, and denied receipt of the written notices of dishonor.

Trial Court Proceedings

The Municipal Trial Court in Cities found petitioner guilty of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and sentenced her to pay a fine of P50,000 and to pay civil liabilities to the private complainant in the sum of P50,000, plus attorney’s fees and filing-fee reimbursement. The Regional Trial Court affirmed the conviction on appeal. The petitioner sought relief in the Court of Appeals, which on December 4, 2006 denied the petition for review. Petitioner then filed a petition for review in this Court.

Issues Presented

The dispositive issue was whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the essential elements of a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, specifically: (1) that the accused made, drew and issued a check for value; (2) that the accused knew at the time of issue that there were insufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank; and (3) that the check was dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or would have been dishonored but for a stop-payment order. A subsidiary issue concerned whether the prosecution proved that a written notice of dishonor was actually sent to and received by the petitioner.

Parties’ Contentions

Petitioner argued that she could not be criminally liable because the check was not owned by her and had been issued merely as collateral, and she relied on jurisprudence such as Elvira Yu Oh v. Court of Appeals in support. The prosecution maintained that the act of issuing a worthless check sufficed for criminal liability and relied on the registry return receipts as proof that written notices of dishonor had been sent by registered mail, invoking the presumption of knowledge under Section 2 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.

The Court’s Disposition

The Court found the petition meritorious and reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court acquitted Amada Resterio of the criminal charge of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 for failure of the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court nonetheless ordered petitioner to pay Bernardo Villadolid the principal amount of P50,000 with legal interest of 6% per annum from the filing of the information until the finality of the decision, and 12% per annum thereafter until paid. The Court made no pronouncement on costs.

Legal Basis and Reasoning on the Elements

The Court reiterated the three essential elements the prosecution must prove for a conviction under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22: (1) the making, drawing and issuance of a check to apply on account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer or issuer that at the time of issuance there were insufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank; and (3) the dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or an equivalent stop-payment circumstance. The Court treated the first and third elements as established on the record: the check had been issued and was dishonored, and the bank’s return memorandum indicated the account had been closed.

Requirement and Proof of Notice of Dishonor

The Court analyzed the second element in light of Section 2 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, which creates a prima facie presumption of knowledge of insufficiency when a dishonored check is presented within ninety days and the drawer receives notice and fails to pay or arrange payment within five banking days. The Court emphasized that the presumption arises only after proof that the issuer actually received a written notice of dishonor and that the five-day period is therefore ascertainable. The Court observed that a written notice is indispensable and that an oral notice cannot satisfy the statutory requirement. The Court further explained that the written notice may be sent by the offended party or by the drawee bank and that the notice also supplies procedural due process by affording the drawer an opportunity to avert prosecution by payment or arrangement within five banking days.

Standards for Proving Mailing by Registered Mail

The Court applied controlling precedents to the question whether registry return receipts alone prove service of a written notice sent by registered mail. Citing Ting v. Court of Appeals, Dico v. Court of Appeals, and related authorities, the Court held that where service is by registered mail the registry return receipt must be accompanied by the authenticating affidavit of the person who mailed the notice or by the mailer’s testimony in court. The registry return receipt alone, without authentication, did not raise the nece

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms