(1) the making, drawing,

and issuance of any check

to apply for account or for
value

CASE

Resterio v. People
Issuer of check: Amada
Resterio
Issued to: Bernardo Villadolid
Checks issued: 1 Chinabank
check
In payment for: collateral for

Reason for dishonor: Account

closed

Alferez v. People
Issuer of check: Jamie Alferez
Issued to: Cebu ABC Sales
Commercial / Pingping Co
Checks issued: 3 BPI checks
In payment for: the goods
Reason for dishonor: Closed
account

Rico v. People
Issuer of check: Ben Rico
Issued to: Ever Lucky
Commercial / Victor Chan
Checks issued: 5 PCIB checks
In payment for: construction
materials
Reason for dishonor:
insufficiency of funds / closed
account

In the proceedings, Resterio

stated that the check issued
did not belonged to her but to
her friend (she only borrowed
the check) and it was only
issued as a collateral
SC the law does not look on
the actual owner of the check
or at the intention of the
maker, drawer, or issuer
since
BP22
is
malum
prohibitum.

UNDISPUTED FACT

UNDISPUTED FACT

ELEMENTS OF VIOLATION OF B.P. 22

(2) the knowledge of the maker,
drawer, or issuer that at the time of
the issue there were no sufficient
funds in or credit with the drawee
bank for the payment of such check
in full upon its presentment
^prima facie presumption when:
a. check is presented within 90 days
from the date of the check
b. drawer or maker of the check
fails to pay the holder of the check
the amount due thereon, or make
arrangements for payment in full
within
5
banking
days
after
receiving such notice that the check
has not been paid by the drawee
????
SC The state should present the giving
of a written notice of the dishonor to the
drawer, maker or issuer. THERE MUST
BE CLEAR PROOF OF NOTICE.
Only proof given: registry return receipt
There must be: authenticating affidavit
that the notice had been actually sent
and received; signatures must also be
identified. Without such, there is no valid
notice
Verbal notice must be in writing

ADDTL ISSUES/NOTES
(3) the dishonor of the
check by the drawee
bank for insufficiency of
funds or credit or the
dishonor of the same
reason
had
not
the
drawer, without any valid
cause,
ordered
the
drawee bank to stop
payment

The
check
had
been
dishonored
upon
its
presentment through the
BPI. This fact was not denied
by petitioner.

RULING: Acquitted, but still civilly

liable for 50,000Php

????
In this case, the prosecution merely
presented a copy of the demand letter,
together with the registry receipt and
the return card, allegedly sent to the
petitioner. There were no attempt to
authenticate the signature on the
registry return card. REGISTRY RETURN
CARD WITH AN UNAUTHENTICATED
SIGNATURE DOES NOT MEET THE
REQUIRED PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT THAT THE PETITIONER RECEIVED
THE NOTICE.

UNDISPUTED FACT

In this case, petitioner filed for a

Demurrer to Evidence, which MTCC
denied. Hence, he was not allowed
to present evidence. MTC held
petitioner guilty.
Issue raised by petitioner: the
elements of BP22 had not been
sufficiently established
CA petitioner did not testify, he
did not object to the proof of notice
of dishonor

????
The presumption that the issuer had
knowledge of the insufficiency of funds is
brought into existence only after it is
proved that the issuer had received a
notice of dishonor and that 5 days from
such receipt thereof, he failed to pay the
amount of the check or to make
arrangement for its payment.
SC there were no proof that show that
formal and written demand letters or
notices were ever sent to petitioner, they

UNDISPUTED FACT

RULING: Acquitted, but still civilly

liable.
Rico claimed that he has already
paid the amounts covered by the
checks + interest
OSG Rico made payments for
different transaction; it also failed
to prove that the payment was
made within 5 days after receipt of
notice of dishonor
RULING: Acquitted, but still civilly
liable.

merely relied on the testimony of the

prosecution witness Danila Cac
HENCE,
THE
PRIMA
FACIE
PRESUMTIONTION WOULD NOT ARISE
SINCE THERE WOULD BE NO WAY OF
RECKONING
THE
CRUCIAL
50DAY
PERIOD.
Petitioner is not properly notified of
dishonor
And even if it did, there appears to be an
arrangement
for
the
payment/
replacement of the checks between the
parties (allowing the client to redeem
dishonoredchecks)
For the 6 replacement checks, petitioner
could not be blamed for failing to make
good said check due to the negligence of
Livecor because they only notified
Perpetual after 3 years.

Vergara v. People
Issuer of check: Teresita
Vergara / VP of Perpetual
Garments Corp.
Issued to: Livelihood
Corporation / Victor
Hernandez
Checks issued: 1 Metrobank
check
In payment for: continuing
credit line
Reason for dishonor:
insufficiency of funds
Mitra v. People
Issuer of check: Eumelia
Mitra and Cabrera
(deceased) / Lucky Nine
Credit Corporation
Issued to: Felicisimo Tarcelo
Checks issued: 7 Security
bank checks
In payment for: money
placement transactions
invested by Tarcelo
Reason for dishonor: Account
closed
Ongson v. People
Issuer of check: Victor
Ongson
Issued to: Samson Uy
Checks issued: 8 FBTC
checks
In payment for: payment of
loan (check vouchers for
beverage products)
Reason for dishonor:
Payment Stop/ DAIF /
Account Closed

San Mateo v. People

Issuer of check: Erlinda San
Mateo
Issued to: ITSP International /
Sehwani
Checks issued: 11 Metrobank
PDCs

Although petitioners made cash

and checks payments after the said
dishonor, the same was treated by
Livcor as continuing payments of
the outstanding loan: applied first
to interests and penalties
Vergara: she replaced the check
with 6 checks worth 25,000 each,
paid 542000 covering the full
amount of the dishonored check
Contention: the full payment made
2 years prior the filing of the
information justifies her acquittal
RULING: ACQUITTED
Contention: no name, no amount,
no date on the checks, only their
signatures; they did not know when
and to whom the checks were
issued

*Mitra alleges that there was no proper

service on her of the notice of dishonor
SC this is a factual issue and not proper
for review; positive allegation prevails
over denial made by the accused
*Accused refused to sign the evidence of
receipt

SC- the person who actually signed

the corporate check shall be held
liable for violation of BP22.
RULING: GUILTY

Checks should be properly

described.
Hence, for 2 checks =
acquitted
due
to
inconsistencies
of
the
information and evidence;
there being discrepancy in
the identity of the checks
6
checks
=
conviction
affirmed because checks are
presumed to be issued for
valuable
consideration
(whether
it
was
loan,
investment of the business of
the petitioner)

Petitioner through counsel admitted the

receipt of complainants demand letters
via registered mail informing him of the
dishonor of the checks. Hence, it binds
the client.
That only a representative signed the
registry return receipt is of no
consequence because of the unqualified
admission of the latter.

While she may have requested Sehwani

to defer the depositing of her checks, it
does not constitute to an admission that,
when she issued those checks, she knew
that that she would have no sufficient
funds in the drawee bank to pay for
them.

It is shown by the reason for

the dishonor is stamped in
the dorsal portion of the
checks which are also prima
facie presumptions of such
dishonor with the reasons
therefor.
*it is not required for a bank
representative to testify as
witness

RTC rendered a one-page decision

finding petitioner guilty as charged
(no material facts i.e. transaction
that lead to issuance of checks, no
discussion of the elements, etc).
Hence, petitioner contends denial
of due process.
RULING:
AQCUITTAL
FOR
COUNTS; GUILTY FOR 6 COUNTS

Whenever the check matures, San

Mateo would request not to deposit
the checks for lack of sufficient
funds. But still continued to fail to
settle her account. Hence, Sehwani
was forced to deposit the checks.
Registered mail: returned with

In payment for: assorted

yarns
Reason for dishonor: Stop
payment order then account
closed

Prosecution failed to show that the letter

ever reached San Mateo.

Morillo v People
Issuer of check: Richard
Natividad / RB Custodio
Construction
Issued to: Armilyn Morillo /
Amasea General
Merchandise
Checks issued: 2 Metrobank
PDCs
In payment for: construction
materials
Reason for dishonor: closed
account

Happened in Pampanga

Svensden v. People
Issuer of check: James
Svensden
Issued to: Cristina Reyes
Checks issued: 1
International Exchange Bank
pd check
In payment for: loan
Reason for dishonor: DAIF
Ting v. CA
Issuer of check: Victor Ting
and Emily Chang-Azajar
Issued to: Josefina Tagle
Checks issued: 19 Producers
Bank check (7 were
presented)
In payment for: replacement
for Juliet Tings 11 PDCs
Reason for dishonor: DAIF
Llenado v People
Issuer of check: Eleanor de
leon Llenado
Issued to: Editha Villaflores
Checks issued:
In payment for: to secure
loans
Reason for dishonor:

Petitioner
admits
issued the PDC

having

Also transpired in Pampanga

The registry return receipt was not

authenticated

notation N/S Party Out and San

Mateo did not claim despite 3
notices

Dishonor also happened in

Pampanga; the complainant
deposited the checks in her
savings account in Equitable
PCIBank, Makati branch she
was subsequently informed
that
the
checks
were
dishonored by the drawee
bank.

The check was dishonored

upon presentment in BDO

RULING: ACQUITTED BUT CIVILLY

LIABLE
Agreement: 20% paid w/in 1st
delivery; 80% to be paid on the last
delivery
ISSUE: VENUE
Petitioner contention: MeTC of
Makati had no jurisdiction because
the checks were issued, drawn and
delivered
in
Subic(?)
(Nieva
doctrine)
RTC: BP22 is a continuing offense.
CA: Reversed
SC: CA Reversed, RTC affirmed
It is well settled that violations of
BP22 cases are categorized as
transitory and continuing crimes,
meaning that some acts material
and essential thereto and requisite
in their consummation occur in one
municipality or territory, while
some occur in another. (See page 9
of decision)
*The 10%/month interest is
iniquitous
RULING: AQCUITTED, CIVILLY
LIABLE

No attempt was made to show that the

demand letter was indeed sent through
registered mail nor was the signature on
the
registry
return
receipt
aunthenticated or identified

Petitioner alleges that responded failed

to prove that there was actual receipt of
the notice of dishonor
SC it is a question of fact in which the
SC cannot rule upon

ACQUITTED.

CA AFFIRMED.