Case Summary (G.R. No. 108208)
Facts and Procedural History
Amada Resterio was charged in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Mandaue City for issuing a dishonored ChinaBank check dated June 3, 2002, in the amount of ₱50,000.00 payable to Bernardo Villadolid. The check was dishonored due to a closed account. She was convicted by the MTCC, which imposed a fine and awarded civil liabilities. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the conviction. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which denied her petition. Petitioner then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review, contending that the prosecution failed to prove all elements of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 beyond reasonable doubt, specifically challenging the sending and receipt of the required notice of dishonor.
Essential Elements of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 Violation
To establish a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt:
- The making, drawing, and issuance of a check to apply on account or for value;
- Knowledge by the drawer, maker or issuer that there were insufficient funds or credit in the drawee bank for payment at the time the check was issued; and
- Dishonor of the check by the drawee bank due to insufficient funds or credit, or dishonor for the same reason had the drawer not stopped payment without valid cause.
Ownership and Intent of the Check Irrelevant to Criminal Liability
Although petitioner claimed the check was merely used as collateral and not owned by her, the Supreme Court clarified that ownership or intent to deposit is immaterial under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. The law penalizes the mere act of issuing a worthless check. The court cited prior jurisprudence (Lozano v. Martinez, Ruiz v. People) emphasizing that the offense targets the act of issuing dishonored checks to safeguard public interest and commercial integrity. The law encompasses issuing checks on accounts that are closed or lacking funds, regardless of ownership or intent.
Proof of Dishonor and Knowledge of Insufficiency
The dishonor of the check by the drawee bank was undisputed, supported by the return check memorandum reflecting the account closure. However, knowledge of the insufficiency of funds is a mental element that is difficult to prove directly, hence Section 2 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 creates a prima facie presumption of such knowledge upon:
- Presentment of the check within 90 days from its date;
- Receipt by the maker or drawer of a written notice of dishonor; and
- Failure to pay or arrange payment within five banking days after receipt of the written notice.
This presumption, however, is contingent on proof that a written notice of dishonor was actually sent and received by the drawer or maker.
Requirement and Nature of Written Notice of Dishonor
The notice of dishonor must be in writing to afford the accused the opportunity to pay or make payment arrangements within five banking days, which serves as a procedural safeguard and due process requirement. Oral notice is insufficient. The notice may be sent by registered mail or other means, but when sent by registered mail, proof of service must include:
- Registry return receipt;
- Registry receipt; and
- Authenticating affidavit of the person who mailed the notice, or the personal testimony of the mailer.
Absent the affidavit or testimony, evidence of sending by registered mail is insufficient to prove receipt of the notice beyond reasonable doubt.
Lack of Sufficient Proof of Notice to Petitioner
In this case, the prosecution presented only registry return receipts without the required authenticating affidavit or testimony to establish that the notices of dishonor were actually sent and received by petitioner. Petitioner denied receiving the notices. The Supreme Court ruled that mere presentation of registry return receipts is insufficient proof of service. This principle was supported by prior rulings (Ting v. Court of Appeals), explaining that in criminal cases, the burden of proof to establish service beyond reasonable doubt rests on the prosecution and requires clear and convincing evidence.
Impact of Failure to Prove Notice on Prima Facie Presumption and Criminal Liability
Since the prosecution failed to prove that petitioner received the written notices of dishonor, the presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds under Section 2 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 could not arise. Thus, not all essential elements of the offense were established beyond reasonable doubt, necessitating petitioner's acquittal. The Supreme Court emphasized the principle that penal laws should be strictly construed against the State and liberal
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 108208)
Facts and Procedural Antecedents
- Petitioner Amada Resterio was charged with violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 for issuing a dishonored check.
- The check involved was ChinaBank Check No. AO141332, dated June 3, 2002, amounting to ₱50,000.00, payable to Bernardo T. Villadolid.
- The Information alleged that petitioner drew and issued the check with knowledge that there were insufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank.
- The check was dishonored due to the account being closed, or would have been dishonored but for the stop payment order issued without valid cause.
- Despite notice of dishonor and demand for payment, petitioner failed to redeem or arrange for payment within five banking days.
- The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) convicted petitioner, sentencing her to pay a fine and civil liabilities.
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the conviction upon appeal.
- The Court of Appeals (CA) likewise denied petitioner’s appeal, prompting elevation of the case to the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented for Resolution
- Whether the CA gravely erred in ignoring the applicability of the Supreme Court ruling in Elvira Yu Oh v. Court of Appeals.
- Whether the prosecution failed to prove all essential elements of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether no actual notice of dishonor was sent to petitioner, thus invalidating prosecution.
- Whether the prosecution failed to establish petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Legal Framework: Essential Elements of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 Violation
- Three indispensable elements must be established:
- Making, drawing, and issuance of a check to apply for account or value.
- Knowledge by the drawer, maker or issuer that insufficient funds or credit existed with the drawee bank at the time of issuance for full payment.
- Dishonor of the check by the drawee bank due to insufficient funds or credit, or issuance of stop payment without valid cause leading to dishonor.
- The law imposes penal liability on the mere issuance of a worthless check regardless of ownership or intent.
- The law treats issuance of worthless checks as a public nuisance and a crime malum prohibitum.
Facts Related to Essential Elements
- Petitioner admitted she did not own the check but used it as collateral for a loan.
- The dishonor of the check due to account closure was established by the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) return memorandum.
- Petitioner did not dispute the dishonor.
- Petitioner’s defense asserted lack of ownership and non-intent to deposit the check, which was rejected.
- Previous jurisprudence (Ruiz v. People) clarified that liability under B.P. 22 applies to issuance of worthless checks regardless of ownership or intent.
The Crucial Element of Knowledge and the Notice of Dishonor Requirement
- Knowledge of insufficient funds is generally difficult to prove; hence, Section 2 of B.P. 22 creates a prima facie presumption of such knowledge once:
- The check is presented within 90 days of issuance.
- The maker or drawer receives written notice of dishonor.
- The maker