1

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
National Prosecution Service
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Quezon City

SHERILL GAMBOA-LEAÑO,
Complainant,

I.S. No. ___________________

-versus - For: ESTAFA and B.P. Blg.
22.

MARIA SHIENA REPALDA MANALILI,

a.k.a. MELIZZA OR MICHELLE MANALILI,
Respondent.

x---------------------------------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

THE UNDERSIGNED COMPLAINANT respectfully alleges:

1. Complainant is of legal age, married, Filipino and for purposes of this criminal
complaint, with postal address at No. 1 Tinagan Street, Bgy. San Jose, Quezon City;

2. The Respondent is of legal age, with live-in partner, Filipino and with the following
three (3) addresses, where subpoena and notices may be served, to wit:

1). No. 4 Guijo St., Silangan Subd.

Ilano Road, Novaliches, Quezon City

2). Blk 19 Lot 2 Sta. Lucia Subd., Novaliches

Quezon City

2). VXI Global Holdings

Ocean- X Division
Panorama Bldg. EDSA
Bgy. Veterans Village, Quezon City

3. This is a criminal complaint for ESTAFA and for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 involving
the sum of One Hundred Twenty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Pesos (P129,250.00) arising
from various checks issued by the respondent to the complainant.

4. Complainant and Respondent are both working in the same company known as
VXI Global Holdings located at Panorama Bldg. EDSA, Bgy. Veterans Village, Quezon City
the former assigned at Comcast Central Division while the latter at Ocean-X Division;

5. Sometime on February 2018, Respondent approached Complainant in her office

and sought the help of the latter by way of a personal loan leaving Respondent’s Automated
Teller Machine (ATM) Card as a collateral;

5.1 After paying the Complainant of her loan, again Respondent sought help or
renewed her loan because according to Respondent she will pay the jewelries she got from a
 2

financier as she is a sales agent of it, hence, Complainant gave in to the request or loan of the
Respondent;

5.2 Few days later, Respondent offered to Complainant some jewelry items ,
however, Complainant found the items costly until both Complainant and Respondent
entered a verbal agreement that Respondent will sell the jewellery items of Complainant
which are cheaper and Respondent will just mark-up the price of them;

5.3 On July 15, 2018 , Complainant entrusted jewelry items to Respondent for the
latter to offer for sale worth P79,000.00 ;

5.4 On July 25, 2018, again Complainant entrusted some jewelries worth P35,600 to
Respondent which according to the latter was sold to a certain Mrs. Pineda;

5.5 Only July 30, 2018 Respondent received from Complainant jewelry items worth
P78,500.00, and on the same day Respondent received 3 various jewelry items worth
P21,000.00 which according to Respondent was sold or ordered by a certain Ms. Juliet
Katigbak;

5.6 On August 6, 2018 Respondent obtained from Complainant a Choker/Necklace

worth P25,000.00 which according to Respondent was sold to a certain Mrs. Almeda,
however, only P5,000.00 was remitted to Complainant;

5.7 On August 12, 2018 Respondent again obtained various jewelries now for a higher
amount worth P144,000.00 but only P20,000.00 was remitted leaving a balance of
P124,000.00;

5.8 On August 16, 2018 Respondent got a 21K (8.39 grams) necklace worth
P30,000.00 but was unreturned or proceeds of sales unremitted;

5.9 On August 19, 2018 Respondent made promises to settle all her obligations thru
remittance of the sales proceeds, she again obtained, various jewelry items worth
P254,200.00, however, only P18,200 was remitted leaving a new balance thereof of
P236,000.00;

5.10 On August 30, 2018 Respondent was entrusted 8 items of jewelries worth
P46,300.00 but not a single centavo was remitted therefrom;

5.11 On August 31, 2018 worth P169,500 of 7 items of jewelries were entrusted to
Respondent but remained unpaid or unremitted;

5.12 On September 1, 2018 two (2) Bangles were received by Respondent from
Complainant again for sale and on commission one worth P60,000.00 but only P20,000.oo
was paid/remitted and the other one a Cartier Bangle worth P42,000.00 but only P5,000.00
was paid out of it leaving a balance of P37,000.00;

5.13 On September 21, 2018 Complainant got fed up to the Respondent’s never
ending promises and sweet assurances and guarantees for the long overdue of her obligation,
they came up with a computation and Respondent promised for the last time to pay the whole
amount due;

5.14 On September 25, 2018, Respondent now wrote a letter to Complainant

informing the latter that Respondent was victimized by a hold-upper ( which according to
respondent was a relative of her?) Then subsequently, text messages were received by
Complainant from unknown or unidentified texter informing her that Respondent Melizza
Manalili ( Nickname of Respondent) was a victim of hold-up and told her ( the texter) that
She (respondent) will pay the complainant, however few days passed, nothing happened;
 3

5.15 Likewise, complainant received from the same texter that Respondent
deactivated her Facebook Account for security reasons and advised Complainant that the two
of them will just communicate via facebook (as middleman) on the update /status of the
payment of Respondent;

5.16 Complainant by diligence discovered the new cell phone number of Respondent
and called her and asked why Respondent does not accept the friend request (from facebook)
of Complainant and pressured her or intimidated Respondent that a criminal case against
Respondent will be filed so she will be put behind bars;

5.17 Respondent then was constrained to issue the following checks in my favor as
supposed payment for her obligation for the jewelries she borrowed or entrusted to her, to
wit:

BPI Family Savings Bank Checks with Numbers 0396948, Check No. 0396943 and
Check No. 0396939 all dated September 30, 2018 in the amount of P14,500.00, P7,250.00
and P8,000.00 respectively, and Check No. 0432852 dated October 31, 2018 in the amount
of P100,000.00, which were all dishonoured by the drawee bank for the reason that those
were “Drawn Against Insufficient Fund and Account Closed”.

5.18 Subsequently, a Demand Letter was sent to Respondent for her to settle her
obligation and make arrangements with the bank within five (5) working days but to no avail;

5.19 For the record, and to form part hereof, by incorporation and reference, attached
hereto are copies of the following supporting documents, to wit:

Annex “A” – A true and faithful machine reproduction of notebook record of

complainant showing the borrowed items, the price amount corresponding to each item and
the Total amount of the items received.

Annex “B” - A true and faithful machine reproduction of notebook record of

complainant showing the borrowed items, the price amount corresponding to each item and
the Total amount of the items received and the signature of respondent.

Annex “C” - A true and faithful machine reproduction of notebook record of

complainant showing the borrowed items, the price amount corresponding to each item and
the Total amount of the items received and the signature of respondent.

Annex “D” - A true and faithful machine reproduction of notebook record of

complainant showing the borrowed items, the price amount corresponding to each item and
the Total amount of the items received and the signature of respondent.

Annex “E” – A true and faithful machine reproduction of the note/letter of

Respondent dated September 25, 2018 acknowledging her obligation with Complainant;

Annex “F” – A true and faithful machine reproduction of the Check issued to
Complainant dated September 30, 2018 in the amount of P14,500.00;

Annex “G” – A true and faithful machine reproduction of the Check issued to
Complainant dated September 30, 2018 in the amount of P7,250.00;

Annex “H” – A true and faithful machine reproduction of the Check issued to
Complainant dated September 30, 2018 in the amount of P8,000.00;
 4

Annex “I” – A true and faithful machine reproduction of the Check issued to
Complainant dated October 31, 2018 in the amount of P100,000.00;

Annex “J” – A true and faithful machine reproduction of the Return Check Advice
issued by the Depository Bank notifying of the dishonoured check in the amount of
P14,500.00 for reason Drawn Against Insufficient Fund (DAIF) with attached image of the
returned document.

Annex “K” – A true and faithful machine reproduction of the Return Check Advice
issued by the Depository Bank notifying of the dishonoured check in the amount of P7,250.00
for reason Drawn Against A Closed Account with attached image of the returned document.

Annex “L” – A true and faithful machine reproduction of the Return Check Advice
issued by the Depository Bank notifying of the dishonoured check in the amount of P8,000.00
for reason Drawn Against A Closed Account with attached image of the returned document.

Annex “M” – A true and faithful machine reproduction of the Return Check Advice
issued by the Depository Bank notifying of the dishonoured check in the amount of
P100,000.00 for reason Drawn Against Insufficient Fund (DAIF) with attached image of the
returned document.

Annex “N” – A true and faithful machine reproduction of the Demand Letter sent to
Respondent with attached copy of the Official Receipt of the Forwarder and

Annex “N-1” The photographed Text message return of the Forwarder Company that
the parcel/mailed letter was received by the receiver.

6. DISCUSSION
.

APPLICABLE LAWS

6.1. Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code on deceit/swindling (estafa) provides any person
who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned therein shall be punished by the
penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to minimum periods and a fine of not
less than the value of the damage caused and not more than three times such value, shall be
imposed upon ―any person who, to the prejudice of another, shall execute any fictitious contract.”

6.2 Article 318 (other deceits) of the Revised Penal Code provides that the penalty of arresto
mayor and a fine of not less than the amount of the damage caused and not more than twice
such amount shall be imposed upon any person who shall defraud or damage another by
“any other deceit not mentioned in the preceding articles of this chapter.”

6.3 Further, B.P. Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) provides:

6.4 Any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value,
knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee
bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check is subsequently
dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been
dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the
bank to stop payment, shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not
more than one (1) year or by fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the
check which fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand pesos, or both such fine
and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
 5

6.5 The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who having sufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a check, shall fail to
keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented
within a period of ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is
dishonored by the drawee bank.

6.6 Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person or persons who
actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act.

6.7 The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee
because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within ninety (90)
days from the date of the check, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such
insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount
due thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within
five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.

6.8 It shall be the duty of the drawee of any check, when refusing to pay the same to
the holder thereof upon presentment, to cause to be written, printed or stamped in plain
language thereon, or attached thereto, the reason for drawee's dishonor or refusal to pay the
same: Provided , That where there are no sufficient funds in or credit with such drawee bank,
such fact shall always be explicitly stated in the notice of dishonor or refusal. In all
prosecutions under this Act, the introduction in evidence of any unpaid and dishonored
check, having the drawee's refusal to pay stamped or written thereon, or attached thereto, with
the reason therefor as aforesaid, shall be prima facie evidence of the making or issuance of said
check, and the due presentment to the drawee for payment and the dishonor thereof, and that
the same was properly dishonored for the reason written, stamped or attached by the drawee
on such dishonored check.

6.9 Notwithstanding receipt of an order to stop payment, the drawee shall state in the notice
that there were no sufficient funds in or credit with such bank for the payment in full of such
check, if such be the fact."

6.10 BP Blg. 22 enumerates the elements of the crime to be

(1) the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value;

(2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its
presentment; and

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

There is deemed to be a prima facie evidence of knowledge on the part of the maker, drawer
or issuer of insufficiency of funds in or credit with the drawee bank of the check issued if the
dishonored check is presented within 90 days from the date of the check and the maker or
drawer fails to pay thereon or to make arrangement with the drawee bank for that purpose.

6.11 The statute has created the prima facie presumption evidently because "knowledge"
which involves a state of mind would be difficult to establish.

The presumption does not hold, however, when the maker, drawer or issuer of thecheck
pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon or makes arrangement for payment in full by
the drawee bank of such check within 5 banking days after receiving notice that such check
has not been paid by the drawee bank. Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 clearly provides that this
presumption arises not from the mere fact of drawing, making and issuing a bum check; there
 6

must also be a showing that, within five banking days from receipt of the notice of dishonor, such
maker or drawer failed to pay the holder of the check the amount due thereon or to make
arrangement for its payment in full by the drawee of such check.

LATEST APPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCE: ESTAFA

6.12 In PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. VIRGINIA BABY P. MONTANER, G.R.

No. 184053, August 31,2011, the accused was convicted for the crime of Estafa as defined
and penalized under paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The Information
alleged that on or about May 17, 1996 in the Municipality of San Pedro, Province of Laguna
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court accused Virginia (Baby) P. Montaner did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud one Reynaldo Solis in the
following manner: said accused by means of false pretenses and fraudulent acts that her
checks are fully funded draw, make and issue in favor of one Reynaldo Solis ten (10)
Prudential Bank Checks, all having a total value of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P50,000.00)and all aforesaid checks were postdated June 17, 1996 in exchange for cash
knowing fully well that she has no funds in the drawee bank and when the said checks were
presented for payment the same were dishonored by the drawee bank on reason of
―ACCOUNT CLOSED‖ and despite demand accused failed and refused to pay the value
thereof to the damage and prejudice of Reynaldo Solis in the aforementioned total amount of
P50,000.00.

To exculpate herself from criminal liability, accused Virginia Baby P. Montaner denied the
allegations that she issued ten (10) checks in private complainant’s favor claiming that the ten
(10) checks were borrowed from her by one Marlyn Galope because the latter needed money.
She gave the ten checks to Galope, signed the same albeit the space for the date, amount and
payee were left blank so that the checks cannot be used for any negotiation. She further told
Galope that the checks were not funded. When she learned that a case was filed against her
for estafa, she confronted Marlyn Galope and the latter told her that money will not be given
to her if she will not issue the said checks. She has no knowledge of the notice of dishonor
sent to her by private complainant and claimed that her husband, who supposedly received
the notice of dishonor left for abroad in July 1996 and returned only after a year, that is, in
1997.

In a Decision dated April 8, 2003, the trial court convicted appellant for the crime of estafa as
defined and penalized under paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and
sentenced her to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from twelve (12) years
of prision mayor as minimum to twenty-two (22) years of reclusion perpetua as maximum and
to indemnify complainant Reynaldo Solis in the amount of P50,000.00.

Appellant elevated the case to the Court of Appeals but the adverse ruling was
merely affirmed by the appellate court in its Decision dated February 12, 2008.

Hence, appellant interposed an appeal before the Supreme Court and put forth a single
assignment of error: THETRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED–APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLEDOUBT OF THE
CRIME OF ESTAFA UNDER ARTICLE 315, PAR. 2 (D) OF THE REVISED PENAL
CODE.

Appellant maintains that she entrusted the subject checks, purportedly signed in blank,
to Marilyn Galope (Galope)out of pity in order for the latter to secure a loan. Thus, there is
purportedly no certainty beyond reasonable doubt that she issued the checks purposely to
defraud Reynaldo Solis (Solis) into lending her money. She further claims that no transaction
had ever transpired between her and Solis. Admitting that she may have been imprudent, she
nonetheless insists that her simple imprudence does not translate to criminal liability.

The Supreme Court was not persuaded.

 7

The Court cited Paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

ART. 315.
Swindling (estafa) – Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned
herein below x x x: x x x x

2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud: x x x x

(d) By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender
had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the
amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary
to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee
or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds shall be
prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act.

According to the Court, the elements of estafa under paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the
Revised Penal Code are: (1) the postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation
contracted at the time the check was issued; (2) lack of sufficiency of funds to cover the check;
and (3) damage to the payee. In the said case, the prosecution sufficiently established
appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for estafa under paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the
Revised Penal Code. According to Solis’s clear and categorical testimony, appellant issued to
him the 10 post dated Prudential Bank checks, each in the amount of P5,000.00 or a total of
P50,000.00, in his house in exchange for their cash equivalent. From the circumstances, the
Court held that it was evident that Solis would not have given P50,000.00 cash to appellant
had it not been for her issuance of the 10 Prudential Bank checks. These post dated checks
were undoubtedly issued by appellant to induce Solis to part with his cash. However,
when Solis attempted to encash them, they were all dishonored by the bank because the
account was already closed.

Solis wrote appellant a demand letter dated October 13, 1996 which was received by
appellant’s husband to
inform appellant that her post dated checks had bounced and that she must settle her
obligation or else face legal action from Solis. Appellant did not comply with the demand nor
did she deposit the amount necessary to cover the checks within three days from receipt of
notice. This gave rise to a prima facie evidence of deceit, which is an element of the crime of
estafa, constituting false pretense or fraudulent act as stated in the second sentence of
paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

As for appellant’s claims that she merely entrusted to Galope the blank but signed checks
imprudently, without knowing that Galope would give them as a guarantee for a loan,
the Court viewed such statements with the same incredulity as the lower courts.

Evidence, to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but it
must be credible in itself – such as the common experience and observation of mankind can
approve as probable under the circumstances. The Court has no test of the truth of human
testimony, except its conformity to our knowledge, observation and experience. Whatever is
repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous and is outside judicial cognizance.

Appellant wished to impress upon the Court that she voluntarily parted with her blank but
signed checks not knowing or even having any hint of suspicion that the same may be used
to defraud anyone who may rely on them. Verily, appellant’s assertion defies ordinary
common sense and human experience, the Court stated.
 8

Moreover, the Court added, it is elementary that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and
convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence which has far less evidentiary
value than the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.

It agreed with the lower courts that appellant’s bare denial cannot be accorded credence for
lack of evidentiary support.

As aptly noted by the trial court, appellant’s failure to produce Galope as a witness to
corroborate her story is fatal to her cause. In all, the Court of Appeals committed no error in
upholding the conviction of appellant for estafa. Hence, the Supreme Court AFFIRMED the
two decisions of both the trial court and the appellate court.

LATEST APPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCE: B.P. BLG. 22

5.7. In EUMELIA R. MITRA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and FELICISIMO

S. TARCELO, G.R. NO.191404, July 5, 2010 , the petitioner Eumelia R. Mitra (Mitra) was
the Treasurer, and Florencio L. Cabrera(deceased), Jr. was the President, of Lucky Nine
Credit Corporation (LNCC), a corporation engaged in money lending activities. Between 1996
and 1999, private respondent Felicisimo S. Tarcelo (Tarcelo) invested money in LNCC. As
the usual practice in money placement transactions, Tarcelo was issued checks equivalent to
the amounts he invested plus the interest on his investments by Mitra and Cabrera, were
issued by LNCC to Tarcelo.

When Tarcelo presented these checks for payment, they were dishonored for the reason ―a
ccount closed.

Tarcelo made several oral demands on LNCC for the payment of these checks but he was
frustrated. Constrained, in 2002, he caused the filing of seven informations for violation of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) in the total amount of P925,000.00 with the MTCC in
BatangasCity. After trial on the merits, the MTCC found Mitra and Cabrera guilty of the ch
arges and ordered them to respectively pay the mandated fines for each violation and with
subsidiary imprisonment in all cases, in case of insolvency and it further adjudged them civilly liable
and ordered them to pay, in solidum , private complainant Felicisimo S. Tarcelo the amount
of NINE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P925,000.000).

Mitra and Cabrera appealed to the Batangas RTC contending that: they signed the seven
checks in blank with no name of the payee, no amount stated and no date of maturity; they
did not know when and to whom those checks would be issued; the seven checks were only
among those in one or two booklets of checks they were made to sign at that time; and that
they signed the checks so as not to delay the transactions of LNCC because they did
notregularly hold office there. The RTC affirmed the MTCC decision.

Meanwhile, Cabrera died. Mitra alone filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals
claiming, among others, that there was no proper service of the notice of dishonor on her. The
Court of Appeals dismissed her petition for lack of merit. Mitra went up to the Supreme
Court on a petition for review and submitted the issues:

WHETHER OR NOT THE ELEMENTS OF VIOLATION OF BATAS PAMBANSA

BILANG 22 MUST BE PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT AS AGAINST
THE CORPORATION WHO OWNS THE CURRENT ACCOUNT WHERE THE
SUBJECT CHECKS WERE DRAWN BEFORE LIABILITY ATTACHES TO THE
SIGNATORIES; and WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS PROPER SERVICE OF NOTICE
OF DISHONOR AND DEMAND TO PAY TO THE PETITIONER AND THE LATE
FLORENCIO CABRERA, JR.
 9

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that a check is a negotiable
instrument that serves as a substitute for money and as a convenient form of payment in
financial transactions and obligations. The use of checks as payment allows commercial and
banking transactions to proceed without the actual handling of money, thus, doing away with
the need to physically count bills and coins whenever payment is made. It permits commercial
and banking transactions to be carried out quickly and efficiently. But the convenience
afforded by checks is damaged by unfunded checks that adversely affect confidence in our
commercial and banking activities, and ultimately injure public interest. BP 22 or the
Bouncing Checks Law was enacted for the specific purpose of addressing the problem of the
continued issuance and circulation of unfunded checks by irresponsible persons. To stem the
harm caused by these bouncing checks to the community, BP 22 considers the mere act of
issuing an unfunded check as an offense not only against property but also against public
order.

The purpose of BP 22 in declaring the mere issuance of a bouncing check as malum prohibitum
is to punish the offender in order to deter him and others from committing the offense, to
isolate him from society, to reform and rehabilitate him, and to maintain social order.

The penalty is stiff. BP22 imposes the penalty of imprisonment for at least 30 days or a fine
of up to double the amount of the check or both imprisonment and fine. Specifically , BP 22
provides:

SECTION 1. Checks Without Sufficient Funds. - Any person who makes or draws and issues
any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon
its presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency
of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer,
without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment, shall be punished by
imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year or by a fine of not
less than but not more than double the amount of the check which fine shall in no case exceed
Two Hundred Thousand Pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the
court.

The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who, having sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient
funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period
of ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the
drawee bank. Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity,
the person or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable
under this Act.

SECTION 2. Evidence of Knowledge of Insufficient Funds.— The making, drawing and

issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds
in or credit with such bank, when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check,
shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such
maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for
payment in full by the drawee of such check within five (5) banking days after receiving notice
that such check has not been paid by the drawee.

Mitra posited in the petition that before the signatory to a bouncing corporate check can be
held liable, all the elements of the crime of violation of BP 22 must first be proven against the
corporation. The corporation must first be declared to have committed the violation before
the liability attaches to the signatories of the checks.

The Court stated that it found itself unable to agree with Mitra’s posture. The third paragraph
of Section 1 of BP 22 reads: "Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity,
the person or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable
 10

under this Act." This provision recognizes the reality that a corporation can only act through
its officers. Hence, its wording is unequivocal and mandatory –that the person who actually
signed the corporate check shall be held liable for a violation of BP 22. This provision does not
contain any condition, qualification or limitation.

The Court cited the case of Llamado v. Court of Appeals, where it ruled that the accused was
liable on the unfunded corporate check which he signed as treasurer of the corporation. He
could not invoke his lack of involvement in the negotiation for the transaction as a defense
because BP 22 punishes the mere issuance of
a bouncing check, not the purpose for which the check was issued or in consideration of the
terms and conditionsrelating to its issuance. In this case, Mitra signed the LNCC checks as
treasurer. Following Llamado, she must then beheld liable for violating BP 22. Another
essential element of a violation of BP 22 is the drawer’s knowledge that he has insufficient
funds or credit with the drawee bank to cover his check. Because this involves a state of mind
that is difficult to establish, BP22 creates the prima facie presumption that once the check is
dishonored, the drawer of the check gains knowledge of the insufficiency, unless within five
banking days from receipt of the notice of dishonor, the drawer pays the holder of the check
or makes arrangements with the drawee bank for the payment of the check. The service of the
notice of dishonor gives the drawer the opportunity to make good the check within those five
days to avert his prosecution for violating BP 22.

Mitra alleged that there was no proper service on her of the notice of dishonor and, so, an
essential element of the offense is missing. This contention, the Court said, raised a factual
issue that was not proper for review. It is not the function of the Court to re-examine the
finding of facts of the Court of Appeals. Our review is limited to errors of law and cannot
touch errors of facts unless the petitioner shows that the trial court overlooked facts or
circumstances that warrant a different disposition of the case or that the findings of fact have
no basis on record. Hence, with respect to the issue of the propriety of service on Mitra of the
notice of dishonor, the Court gives full faith and credit to the consistent findings of the MTCC,
the RTC and the CA.

The defense postulated that there was no demand served upon the accused, said denial
deserves scant consideration. Positive allegation of the prosecution that a demand letter was
served upon the accused prevails over the denial made by the accused. Though, having denied
that there was no demand letter served on April 10, 2000,however, the prosecution positively
alleged and proved that the questioned demand letter was served upon the accused on April 10, 2000,
that was at the time they were attending Court hearing before Branch I of this Court. In fact, the
prosecution had submitted a Certification issued by the other Branch of this Court certifying
the fact that the accused were present during the April 10, 2010 hearing. With such
straightforward and categorical testimony of the witness, the Court believes that the
prosecution has achieved what was dismally lacking in the three (3) cases
of Betty King, Victor Ting and Caras – evidence of the receipt by the accused of the demand
letter sent to her.

The Court accepts the prosecution’s narrative that the accused refused to sign the same to
evidence their receipt thereof. To require the prosecution to produce the signature of the
accused on said demand letter would be imposing an undue hardship on it. As well, actual
receipt acknowledgment is not and has never been required of the prosecution either by law
or jurisprudence.

With the notice of dishonor duly served and disregarded, there arose the presumption that
Mitra andCabrera knew that there were insufficient funds to cover the checks upon their
presentment for payment. In fact, the account was already closed.

To reiterate the elements of a violation of BP 22 as contained in the above-quoted provision,

the Court said, a violation exists where:
 11

1. a person makes or draws and issues a check to apply on account or for value;

2. the person who makes or draws and issues the check knows at the time of issue that he does
not have sufficient funds inor credit with the drawee bank for the full payment of the check
upon its presentment; and

3. the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit,
or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid
reason, ordered the bank to stop payment. The Court added that there was no dispute that
Mitra signed the checks and that the bank dishonored the checks because the account had
been closed. Notice of dishonor was properly given, but Mitra failed to pay the checks or
make arrangements for their payment within five days from notice. With all the above
elements duly proven, Mitra cannot escape the civil and criminal liabilities that BP 22 imposes
for its breach.

PRAYER
.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that after notice and hearing
the respondent be indicted for ESTAFA and VIOLATION OF B.P. BLG. 22 to
protect/preserve the right/interest of the complainant to recover her claim of One Hundred
Twenty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Pesos (P129,250.00) plus exemplary damages of
P50,000.00 , moral damages of P50,000.00, attorney’s fees of P25,000.00 plus 5% of the recoverable
amounts, and costs of suit.

Quezon City, December 28, 2018.

SHERILL G. LEAÑO
Complainant

SUBSCRIBED AND SORN to before me this ___ day of December 2018 in Quezon City
affiant with Government-issued ID as_____________________ issued on ________________.

Doc. No. _____

Page No. _____
Book No. _____
Series of 2018.

CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that I have examined the affiant/complainant and I am satisfied that
she voluntarily executed and understood her affidavit.

ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR

 12

That sometime in the morning of __date of issue__, at __place of issue__, Philippines,

the said __Respondent__ issued in my favor a __Name of Bank__ Check No.
_____________ in the amount of P_____________ as supposed payment for the loan
accommodation of P_____________, which I have extended to (him/her);
That the said check is drawn against the account of the said __Respondent__ at
__Name of Bank__ with Account No. _____________;

That at the time the said __Respondent__ issued the delivered the said check to me,
(he/she) made the assurance and representation that the said check is a good check
and would be covered by sufficient funds when presented forpayment;

However, when the above-mentioned check was deposited, the same was dishonored
and returned by the bank on the ground that the same was drawn against a "CLOSED
ACCOUNT".A true and faithful machine reproduction of the said check is hereto
attached as Annex "____";

As such, I immediately notified said __Respondent__ of the dishonor and return of the
said check and demanded from (him/her) that (he/she) make good the said check
within _____________ (____) days from receipt thereof. A true and faithful machine
reproduction of my demand letter to (him/her) is hereto attached as Annex "____"

When said __Respondent__ failed to heed my demands, I endorsed the said check to
my legal counsel who immediately sent a formal demand letter through registered mail
with return card on _____________, which was received by the said __Respondent__
on _____________.As of date however, __Respondent__ has unjustifiably ignored all
these demands to pay the said account and/or to redeem the said returned check. A
true and faithful machine reproduction of my demand letter to (him/her) is hereto
attached as Annex ____"
I am therefore executing this Complaint-Affidavit in support of the charges for Violation
of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 against the said __Respondent__, who may be served
with subpoena and other processes of this Honorable Office at (his/her) last known
address at _____________, Philippines;