G.R. No. 191404. July 5, 2010.* Mitra vs.

People
EUMELIA R. MITRA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and
FELICISIMO S. TARCELO, respondents. Same; Same; Same; Same; Elements.—To reiterate the elements of a
violation of BP 22 as contained in the above-quoted provision, a violation
Criminal Law; Bouncing Checks Law; Batas Pambansa Blg. 22; Checks;
exists where: 1. a person makes or draws and issues a check to apply on
Negotiable Instruments; A check is a negotiable instrument that serves as a
account or for value; 2. the person who makes or draws and issues the check
substitute for money and as a convenient form of payment in financial
knows at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit
transactions and obligations.—A check is a negotiable instrument that serves
with the drawee bank for the full payment of the check upon its presentment;
as a substitute for money and as a convenient form of payment in financial
and 3. the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for
transactions and obligations. The use of checks as payment allows
insufficiency of funds or credit, or would have been dishonored for the same
commercial and banking transactions to proceed without the actual handling
reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to
of money, thus, doing away with the need to physically count bills and coins
stop payment.
whenever payment is made. It permits commercial and banking transactions
to be carried out quickly and efficiently. But the convenience afforded by PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court
checks is damaged by unfunded checks that adversely affect confidence in of Appeals.
our commercial and banking activities, and ultimately injure public interest. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The purpose of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 in M.C. Santos Law Office for petitioner.
declaring the mere issuance of a bouncing check as malum prohibitum is to Dennis C. Macatangay for respondent.
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 MENDOZA, J.:
maintain social order.—BP 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law was enacted for This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
the specific purpose of addressing the problem of the continued issuance and Court assailing the July 31, 2009 Decision1 and the February 11, 2010
circulation of unfunded checks by irresponsible persons. To stem the harm Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 31740. The subject
caused by these bouncing checks to the community, BP 22 considers the mere decision and resolution affirmed the August 22, 2007 Decision of the Regional
act of issuing an unfunded check as an offense not only against property but Trial Court, Branch 2, Batangas City (RTC) which, in turn, affirmed the May 21,
also against public order. The purpose of BP 22 in declaring the mere issuance 2007 Decision of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Batangas
of a bouncing check as malum prohibitum is to punish the offender in order City (MTCC).
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 The Facts:
penalty is stiff. BP 22 imposes the penalty of imprisonment for at least 30 days
Petitioner Eumelia R. Mitra (Mitra) was the Treasurer, and Florencio L.
or a fine of up to double the amount of the check or both imprisonment and
Cabrera, Jr. (now deceased) was the Presi-
fine.
_______________
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes with Associate Justice
* SECOND DIVISION.
Isaias P. Dicdican and Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison, concurring.
674
675
674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 623, JULY 5, 2010 675
1
 Mitra vs. People 2 Complaint-Affidavits, Rollo, pp. 109-115.
dent, of Lucky Nine Credit Corporation (LNCC), a corporation engaged in
676
money lending activities.
676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Between 1996 and 1999, private respondent Felicisimo S. Tarcelo
(Tarcelo) invested money in LNCC. As the usual practice in money placement Mitra vs. People
transactions, Tarcelo was issued checks equivalent to the amounts he
invested plus the interest on his investments. The following checks, signed by - November 19, January 19, 2,500.00 0000046065
Mitra and Cabrera, were issued by LNCC to Tarcelo.2 do- 1998 1999
Bank Date Date of Amount Check No. - November 19, February 19, 2,500.00 0000046066
Issued Check do- 1998 1999
Security September January 15, P 3,125.00 0000045804 - November 19, March 19, 2,500.00 0000046067
Bank 15, 1998 1999 do- 1998 1999
-do- September January 15, 125,000.00 0000045805 - November 19, March 19, 1999 100,000.00 0000046068
15, 1998 1999 do- 1998
-do- September January 20, 2,500.00 0000045809 - November 20, January 20, 10,000.00 0000046070
20, 1998 1999 do- 1998 1999
-do- September January 20, 100,000.00 0000045810 - November 20, February 20, 10,000.00 0000046071
20, 1998 1999 do- 1998 1999
-do- September January 30, 5,000.00 0000045814 - November 20, March 20, 1999 10,000.00 0000046072
30, 1998 1999 do- 1998
-do- September January 30, 200,000.00 0000045815 - November 20, March 20, 1999 10,000.00 0000046073
30, 1998 1999 do- 1998
-do- October 3, February 3, 2,500.00 0000045875 - November 30, January 30, 2,500.00 0000046075
1998 1999 do- 1998 1999
-do- October 3, February 3, 100,000.00 0000045876 - November 30, February 28, 2,500.00 0000046076
1998 1999 do- 1998 1999
-do- November 17, February 5,000.00 0000046061 - November 30, March 30, 1999 2,500.00 0000046077
1998 17, 1999 do- 1998
-do- November 17, March 17, 5,000.00 0000046062 - November 30, March 30, 1999 100,000.00 0000046078
1998 1999 do- 1998
-do- November 17, March 17, 200,000.00 0000046063 When Tarcelo presented these checks for payment, they were dishonored
1998 1999 for the reason “account 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 Batangas
_______________ City.3
2
_______________ 678
678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
3 Id., at pp. 116-129. Mitra vs. People
677 The RTC affirmed the MTCC decision and later denied their motion for
VOL. 623, JULY 5, 2010 677 reconsideration. Meanwhile, Cabrera died. Mitra alone filed this petition for
review6 claiming, among others, that there was no proper service of the
Mitra vs. People
notice of dishonor on her. The Court of Appeals dismissed her petition for lack
of merit.
After trial on the merits, the MTCC found Mitra and Cabrera guilty of the
Mitra is now before this Court on a petition for review and submits these
charges. The fallo of the May 21, 2007 MTCC Decision4 reads:
issues:
“WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the accused FLORENCIO I.
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE ELEMENTS OF VIOLATION OF BATAS
CABRERA, JR., and EUMELIA R. MITRA are hereby found guilty of the offense
PAMBANSA BILANG 22 MUST BE PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT AS
of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 and are hereby ORDERED to
AGAINST THE CORPORATION WHO OWNS THE CURRENT ACCOUNT WHERE
respectively pay the following fines for each violation and with subsidiary
THE SUBJECT CHECKS WERE DRAWN BEFORE LIABILITY ATTACHES TO THE
imprisonment in all cases, in case of insolvency:
SIGNATORIES.
1. Criminal Case No. 43637 - P200,000.00
2. WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS PROPER SERVICE OF NOTICE OF
2. Criminal Case No. 43640 - P100,000.00
DISHONOR AND DEMAND TO PAY TO THE PETITIONER AND THE LATE
3. Criminal Case No. 43648 - P100,000.00
FLORENCIO CABRERA, JR.
4. Criminal Case No. 43700 - P125,000.00
5. Criminal Case No. 43702 - P200,000.00 The Court denies the petition.
6. Criminal Case No. 43704 - P100,000.00 A check is a negotiable instrument that serves as a substitute for money
7. Criminal Case No. 43706 - P100,000.00 and as a convenient form of payment in financial transactions and
Said accused, nevertheless, are adjudged civilly liable and are ordered to obligations. The use of checks as payment allows commercial and banking
pay, in solidum, private complainant Felicisimo S. Tarcelo the amount of NINE transactions to proceed without the actual handling of money, thus, doing
HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P925,000.000). away with the need to physically count bills and coins whenever payment is
SO ORDERED.” made. It permits commercial and banking transactions to be carried out
quickly and efficiently. But the convenience afforded by checks is damaged
Mitra and Cabrera appealed to the Batangas RTC contending that: they
by unfunded checks that adversely affect confidence in our commercial and
signed the seven checks in blank with no name of the payee, no amount
banking activities, and ultimately injure public interest.
stated and no date of maturity; they did not know when and to whom those
BP 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law was enacted for the specific purpose of
checks would be issued; the seven checks were only among those in one or
addressing the problem of the continued issuance and circulation of
two booklets of checks they were made to sign at that time; and that they
unfunded checks by irresponsible
signed the checks so as not to delay the transactions of LNCC because they
_______________
did not regularly hold office there.5
_______________ 6 Id., at pp. 75-105.
4 Id., at pp. 130-134. 679
5 Id., at p. 143. VOL. 623, JULY 5, 2010 679

3
 Mitra vs. People
persons. To stem the harm caused by these bouncing checks to the Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person
community, BP 22 considers the mere act of issuing an unfunded check as an or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer shall be
offense not only against property but also against public order.7 The purpose liable under this Act.
of BP 22 in declaring the mere issuance of a bouncing check as malum SECTION 2. Evidence of Knowledge of Insufficient Funds.— The making,
prohibitum is to punish the offender in order to deter him and others from drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee
committing the offense, to isolate him from society, to reform and because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when presented
rehabilitate him, and to maintain social order.8 The penalty is stiff. BP 22 within ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima
imposes the penalty of imprisonment for at least 30 days or a fine of up to facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless
double the amount of the check or both imprisonment and fine. such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or
Specifically, BP 22 provides: makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within
“SECTION 1. Checks Without Sufficient Funds.—Any person who makes five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid
or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at by the drawee.
the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the
Mitra posits in this petition that before the signatory to a bouncing
drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment,
corporate check can be held liable, all the elements of the crime of violation
which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency
of BP 22 must first be proven against the corporation. The corporation must
of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had
first be declared to have committed the violation before the liability attaches
not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment,
to the signatories of the checks.9
shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more
The Court finds itself unable to agree with Mitra’s posture. The third
than one (1) year or by a fine of not less than but not more than double the
paragraph of Section 1 of BP 22 reads: “Where the check is drawn by a
amount of the check which fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred
corporation, company or entity, the person or persons who actually signed
Thousand Pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the
the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act.” This
court.
provision recognizes the reality that a corporation can only act through its
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who, having
officers. Hence, its wording is unequivocal and mandatory – that the person
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws
who actually signed the corporate check shall be held liable for a violation of
and issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to
BP 22. This provision does not contain any condition, qualification or
cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of ninety (90)
limitation.
days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by
In the case of Llamado v. Court of Appeals,10 the Court ruled that the
the drawee bank.
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
7 Lozano v. Martinez, 230 Phil. 406, 428; 146 SCRA 323, 338 (1986).
_______________
8 Rosario v. Co, G.R. No. 133608, August 26, 2008, 563 SCRA 239, 253.
680 9 Rollo, p. 47.
10 337 Phil. 153, 160; 270 SCRA 423, 431 (1997).
680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Mitra vs. People 681
VOL. 623, JULY 5, 2010 681
4
 Mitra vs. People allegation of the prosecution that a demand letter was served upon the
the transaction as a defense because BP 22 punishes the mere issuance of a accused prevails over the denial made by the accused. Though, having denied
bouncing check, not the purpose for which the check was issued or in that there was no demand letter served on April 10, 2000, however, the
consideration of the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. In this case, prosecution positively alleged and proved that the questioned demand
Mitra signed the LNCC checks as treasurer. Following Llamado, she must then letter was served upon the accused on April 10, 2000, that was at the time
be held liable for violating BP 22. they were attending Court hearing before Branch I of this Court. In fact, the
Another essential element of a violation of BP 22 is the drawer’s prosecution had submitted a Certification issued by the other Branch of this
knowledge that he has insufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank to Court certifying the fact that the accused were present during the April 10,
cover his check. Because this involves a state of mind that is difficult to 2010 hearing. With such straightforward and categorical testimony of the
establish, BP 22 creates the prima facie presumption that once the check is witness, the Court believes that the prosecution has achieved what was
dishonored, the drawer of the check gains knowledge of the insufficiency, dismally lacking in the three (3) cases of Betty King, Victor Ting and Caras—
unless within five banking days from receipt of the notice of dishonor, the evidence of the receipt by the accused of the demand letter sent to her. The
drawer pays the holder of the check or makes arrangements with the drawee Court accepts the prosecution’s narrative that the accused refused to sign the
bank for the payment of the check. The service of the notice of dishonor gives same to evidence their receipt thereof. To require the prosecution to produce
the drawer the opportunity to make good the check within those five days to the signature of the accused on said demand letter would be imposing an
avert his prosecution for violating BP 22. undue hardship on it. As well, actual receipt acknowledgment is not and has
Mitra alleges that there was no proper service on her of the notice of never been required of the prosecution either by law or
dishonor and, so, an essential element of the offense is missing. This jurisprudence.”12 [emphasis supplied]
contention raises a factual issue that is not proper for review. It is not the
With the notice of dishonor duly served and disregarded, there arose the
function of the Court to re-examine the finding of facts of the Court of
presumption that Mitra and Cabrera knew that there were insufficient funds
Appeals. Our review is limited to errors of law and cannot touch errors of
to cover the checks upon their presentment for payment. In fact, the account
facts unless the petitioner shows that the trial court overlooked facts or
was already closed.
circumstances that warrant a different disposition of the case11 or that the
To reiterate the elements of a violation of BP 22 as contained in the above-
findings of fact have no basis on record. Hence, with respect to the issue of
quoted provision, a violation exists where:
the propriety of service on Mitra of the notice of dishonor, the Court gives
1. a person makes or draws and issues a check to apply on
full faith and credit to the consistent findings of the MTCC, the RTC and the
account or for value;
CA.
2. the person who makes or draws and issues the check knows at
“The defense postulated that there was no demand served upon the
the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with
accused, said denial deserves scant consideration. Positive
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
11 American Home Assurance Company v. Chua, 368 Phil. 555, 569; 309
insufficiency of funds or credit, or would
SCRA 250, 259-260 (1999).
_______________
682
12 Rollo, p. 133.
682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Mitra vs. People 683
VOL. 623, JULY 5, 2010 683
5
 Mitra vs. People check to apply for account or for value; (2) The knowledge of the maker,
have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue there were no sufficient funds in or
without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.13 credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its
There is no dispute that Mitra signed the checks and that the bank presentment; and (3) The dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for
dishonored the checks because the account had been closed. Notice of insufficiency of funds or credit or the dishonor for the same reason had not
dishonor was properly given, but Mitra failed to pay the checks or make the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the drawee bank to stop
arrangements for their payment within five days from notice. With all the payment.
above elements duly proven, Mitra cannot escape the civil and criminal Same; Same; Same; What Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 punishes is the mere
liabilities that BP 22 imposes for its breach.14 act of issuing a worthless check. The law does not look either at the actual
WHEREFORE, the July 31, 2009 Decision and the February 11, 2010 ownership of the check or of the account against which it was made, drawn,
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 31740 are hereby or issued, or at the intention of the drawee, maker or issuer.―What Batas
AFFIRMED. Pambansa Blg. 22 punished was the mere act of issuing a worthless check.
SO ORDERED. The law did not look either at the actual ownership of the check or of the
Carpio (Chairperson), Nachura, Peralta and Abad, JJ., concur. account against which it was made, drawn, or issued, or at the intention of
the drawee, maker or issuer. Also, that the check was not intended to be
deposited was really of no consequence to her incurring criminal liability
Judgment and resolution affirmed. under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
Same; Same; Same; Notice of Dishonor; The giving of the written notice
Notes.—SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 merely lays down a rule of of dishonor does not only supply the proof for the second element arising from
preference in the application of the penalties for violation of B.P. Blg. 22—it the presumption of knowledge the law puts up but also affords the offender
does not amend B.P. Blg. 22, nor defeat the legislative intent behind the law. due process.―The giving of the written notice of dishonor does not only
(De Joya vs. The Jail Warden of Batangas City, 417 SCRA 636 [2003]) supply the proof for the second element arising from the presumption of
While it is true that in general, a manager’s check is not legal tender, the knowledge the law puts up but also affords the offender due process. The law
creditor has the option of refusing or accepting it, and payment in check by thereby allows the
the debtor may be acceptable as valid, if no prompt objection to said payment _______________
is made. (Pabugais vs. Sahijwani, 423 SCRA 596 [2004]) * FIRST DIVISION.
——o0o—— 593

VOL. 681, SEPTEMBER 24, 2012 593

Resterio vs. People
offender to avoid prosecution if she pays the holder of the check the
G.R. No. 177438. September 24, 2012.* amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for the payment in full of the
AMADA RESTERIO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. check by the drawee within five banking days from receipt of the written
Criminal Law; Batas Pambansa Blg. 22; Bouncing Checks Law; The notice that the check had not been paid. The Court cannot permit a
Essential Elements of Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.―For a violation deprivation of the offender of this statutory right by not giving the proper
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the Prosecution must prove the following notice of dishonor.
essential elements, namely: (1) The making, drawing, and issuance of any
6
 Same; Same; Same; Same; Where there are no sufficient funds in or notice of dishonor. Without the authenticating affidavit, the proof of giving
credit with the drawee bank, such fact shall always be explicitly stated in the the notice of dishonor is insufficient unless the mailer personally testifies in
notice of dishonor or refusal, a mere oral notice or demand to pay would court on the sending by registered mail.
appear to be insufficient for conviction under the law.―That the wife of
Villadolid verbally informed the petitioner that the check had bounced did Antecedents
not satisfy the requirement of showing that written notices of dishonor had
been made to and received by the petitioner. The verbal notices of dishonor The petitioner was charged with a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 in
were not effective because it is already settled that a notice of dishonor must the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) in Mandaue City through the
be in writing. The Court definitively ruled on the specific form of the notice of information that alleged as follows:
dishonor in Domagsang v. Court of Appeals, 347 SCRA 75 (2000): Petitioner That on May, 2002, or thereabouts, in the City of Mandaue, Philippines,
counters that the lack of a written notice of dishonor is fatal. The Court and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
agrees. While, indeed, Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 does not state that the notice accused, with deliberate intent of gain, did there and then willfully, unlawfully
of dishonor be in writing, taken in conjunction, however, with Section 3 of and feloniously make, draw and issue ChinaBank Check bearing No.
the law, i.e., “that where there are no sufficient funds in or credit with such AO141332, dated June 3, 2002, in the amount of P50,000.00 payable to the
drawee bank, such fact shall always be explicitly stated in the notice of order of Bernardo T. Villadolid to apply on account or for value, the accused
dishonor or refusal,” a mere oral notice or demand to pay would appear to fully knowing well that at the time of the issuance of said check that she does
be insufficient for conviction under the law. The Court is convinced that both not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment
the spirit and letter of the Bouncing Checks Law would require for the act to of such check in full upon its presentment; or the accused having sufficient
be punished thereunder not only that the accused issued a check that is funds in or credit with the drawee bank when she make/s or draw/s and
dishonored, but that likewise the accused has actually been notified in issue/s a check but she failed to keep sufficient funds or maintain a credit to
writing of the fact of dishonor. The consistent rule is that penal statutes have cover the full amount of the check, which check when presented for
to be construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused. encashment was dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason “ACCT.
(Bold emphases supplied; italics in the original text) CLOSED” or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the
drawer, without any valid reason ordered the bank to stop payment, and
PETITION for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals. despite notice of dishonor and demands for payment, said accused failed and
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. refused and still fails
Cesar P. Kilaton, Jr. for private complainant Villadolid. 595
594 VOL. 681, SEPTEMBER 24, 2012 595
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Resterio vs. People
Resterio vs. People and refuses to redeem the check or to make arrangement for payment in full
BERSAMIN, J.: by the drawee of such check within five (5) banking days after receiving the
The notice of dishonor required by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 to be given to notice of dishonor, to the damage and prejudice of the aforenamed private
the drawer, maker or issuer of a check should be written. If the service of the complainant, in the aforestated amount and other claims and charges
written notice of dishonor on the maker, drawer or issuer of the dishonored allowed by civil law.
check is by registered mail, the proof of service consists not only in the CONTRARY TO LAW.1
presentation as evidence of the registry return receipt but also of the registry
receipt together with the authenticating affidavit of the person mailing the After trial, the MTCC found the petitioner guilty as charged, disposing as
follows:
7
 WHEREFORE, decision is hereby rendered finding the accused, AMADA Y. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A SERIOUS AND
RESTERIO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of Batas Pambansa REVERSIBLE ERROR AND WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN NOT
Bilang 22 and sentences her to pay a fine of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE ALL THE ESSENTIAL
(P50,000.00) and to pay her civil liabilities to the private complainant in the ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF VIOLATION OF BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 22.
sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00), TEN THOUSAND PESOS THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A SERIOUS AND
(P10,000.00) as attorney’s fees and FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY[-]FIVE PESOS REVERSIBLE ERROR AND WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN NOT
(P575.00) as reimbursement of the filing fees. FINDING THAT NO NOTICE OF DISHONOR WAS ACTUALLY SENT TO THE
SO ORDERED.2 PETITIONER.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A SERIOUS AND
The petitioner appealed, but the RTC affirmed the conviction.3By petition REVERSIBLE ERROR AND WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN NOT
for review, the petitioner appealed to the CA, stating that: (a) the RTC erred FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GUILT OF THE
in affirming the conviction and in not finding instead that the Prosecution did PETITIONER BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.6
not establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and (b) the conviction was
contrary to existing laws and jurisprudence, particularly Yu Oh v. Court of The appeal hinges on whether or not all the elements of a violation
Appeals.4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 were established beyond reasonable doubt.
On December 4, 2006, the CA found the petition to be without merit, and
denied the petition for review.5 Ruling
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 34-39; penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican, with The petition is meritorious.
Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza and Associate Justice Priscilla Baltazar- For a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the Prosecution must prove the
Padilla concurring. following essential elements, namely:
2 Id., at pp. 2-3. _______________
3 Id., at p. 3. 6 Id., at pp. 13-14.
4 Id. 597
5 Id., at p. 34.
VOL. 681, SEPTEMBER 24, 2012 597
596 Resterio vs. People
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED (1) The making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account
Resterio vs. People or for value;
(2) The knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of
Issues issue there were no sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank
for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment; and
The petitioner assails the affirmance of her conviction by the CA based on (3) The dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of
the following grounds, to wit: funds or credit or the dishonor for the same reason had not the
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A SERIOUS AND drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the drawee bank to stop
REVERSIBLE ERROR AND WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN IGNORING payment.7
THE APPLICABILITY IN THE PRESENT CASE THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME
COURT IN THE CASE OF ELVIRA YU OH VS. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. The existence of the first element of the violation is not disputed.
125297, JUNE 26, 2003. According to the petitioner, she was “required to issue a check as a collateral
8
for the obligation,” and that “she was left with no alternative but to borrow account was already closed when the check was presented for payment. As
the check of her friend xxx and used the said check as a collateral of her the Court in Lozano explained:
loan.”8 During her cross-examination, she stated that she did not own the The effects of the issuance of a worthless check transcends the
check that she drew and issued to complainant Bernardo Villadolid.9 private interests of the parties directly involved in the transaction and
Yet, to avoid criminal liability, the petitioner contends that Batas touches the interests of the community at large. The mischief it creates
Pambansa Blg. 22 was applicable only if the dishonored check was actually is not only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury to the
owned by her; and that she could not be held liable because the check was public. The harmful practice of putting valueless commercial papers in
issued as a mere collateral of the loan and not intended to be deposited. circulation, multiplied a thousandfold, can very well pollute the
The petitioner’s contentions do not persuade. channels of trade and commerce, injure the banking system and
What Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 punished was the mere act of issuing a eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public interest. As aptly
worthless check. The law did not look either at the actual ownership of the stated―
check or of the account against which it was made, drawn, or issued, or at the The “check flasher” does a great deal more than contract a
intention of the drawee, maker or issuer. Also, that the check was not debt; he shakes the pillars of business; and to my mind, it is a
intended to be deposited was really of no consequence to her mistaken charity of judgment to place him in the same category
_______________ with the honest man who is unable to pay his debts, and for
7 Ting v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140665, November 13, 2000, 344 SCRA whom the constitutional inhibition against “imprisonment for
551, 556-557. debt, except in cases of fraud” was intended as a shield and not
8 Rollo, p. 16. a sword.
9 Id., at p. 49. _______________
10 G.R. No. 160893, November 18, 2005, 475 SCRA 476.
598
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 599
Resterio vs. People
VOL. 681, SEPTEMBER 24, 2012 599
incurring criminal liability under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. In Ruiz v.
Resterio vs. People
People,10 the Court debunked her contentions and cogently observed:
In Lozano v. Martinez, this Court ruled that the gravamen of the offense Considering that the law imposes a penal sanction on one who draws and
is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or any check that is issues a worthless check against insufficient funds or a closed account in the
dishonored upon its presentment for payment and putting them in drawee bank, there is, likewise, every reason to penalize a person who
indulges in the making and issuing of a check on an account belonging to
circulation. The law includes all checks drawn against banks. The law was
designed to prohibit and altogether eliminate the deleterious and pernicious another with the latter’s consent, which account has been closed or has no
practice of issuing checks with insufficient or no credit or funds therefor. Such funds or credit with the drawee bank.11 (Bold emphases supplied)
practice is deemed a public nuisance, a crime against public order to be The State likewise proved the existence of the third element. On direct
abated. The mere act of issuing a worthless check, either as a deposit, as a examination, Villadolid declared that the check had been dishonored upon its
guarantee, or even as an evidence of a pre-existing debt or as a mode of presentment to the drawee bank through the Bank of the Philippine Islands
payment is covered by B.P. 22. It is a crime classified as malum prohibitum. (BPI) as the collecting bank. The return check memorandum issued by BPI
The law is broad enough to include, within its coverage, the making and indicated that the account had already been closed.12 The petitioner did not
issuing of a check by one who has no account with a bank, or where such deny or contradict the fact of dishonor.

9
 The remaining issue is whether or not the second element, that is, the (b) the drawer or maker of the check receives notice that such check has not
knowledge of the petitioner as the issuer of the check that at the time of issue been paid by the drawee; and (c) the drawer or maker of the check fails to
there were no sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the pay the holder of the check the amount due thereon, or make arrangements
payment of such check in full upon its presentment, was existent. for payment in full within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that
To establish the existence of the second element, the State should present such check has not been paid by the drawee. In other words, the
the giving of a written notice of the dishonor to the drawer, maker or issuer presumption is brought into existence only after it is proved that the issuer
of the dishonored check. The rationale for this requirement is rendered had received a notice of dishonor and that within five days from receipt
in Dico v. Court of Appeals,13 to wit: thereof, he failed to pay the amount of the check or to make arrangements
To hold a person liable under B.P. Blg. 22, the prosecution must not only for its payment. The presumption or prima facie evidence as provided in this
establish that a check was issued and that the same was subsequently section cannot arise, if such notice of nonpayment by the drawee bank is
dishonored, it must further be shown that accused knew at the time of the not sent to the maker or drawer, or if there is no proof as to when such
issuance of the check that he did not have sufficient funds or credit with the notice was received by the drawer, since there would simply be no way of
drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment. reckoning the crucial 5-day period.
_______________ A notice of dishonor received by the maker or drawer of the check is
11 Id., at pp. 489-490. thus indispensable before a conviction can ensue. The notice of dishonor
12 Rollo, p. 48. may be sent by the offended party or the drawee bank. The notice must be
13 G.R. No. 141669, February 28, 2005, 452 SCRA 441. in writing. A mere oral notice to pay a dishonored check will not suffice. The
601
600
VOL. 681, SEPTEMBER 24, 2012 601
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Resterio vs. People
Resterio vs. People
lack of a written notice is fatal for the prosecution.14 (Bold emphases
This knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit at the time of the supplied)
issuance of the check is the second element of the offense. Inasmuch as this
element involves a state of mind of the person making, drawing or issuing The giving of the written notice of dishonor does not only supply the proof
the check which is difficult to prove, Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 creates a prima for the second element arising from the presumption of knowledge the law
facie presumption of such knowledge. Said section reads: puts up but also affords the offender due process. The law thereby allows the
SEC. 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds.―The offender to avoid prosecution if she pays the holder of the check the amount
making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused due thereon, or makes arrangements for the payment in full of the check by
by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, the drawee within five banking days from receipt of the written notice that
when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check, the check had not been paid.15 The Court cannot permit a deprivation of the
shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of offender of this statutory right by not giving the proper notice of dishonor.
funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof The nature of this opportunity for the accused to avoid criminal prosecution
the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full has been expounded in Lao v. Court of Appeals:16
by the drawee of such check within five (5) banking days after receiving It has been observed that the State, under this statute, actually offers the
notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee. violator “a compromise by allowing him to perform some act which operates
For this presumption to arise, the prosecution must prove the following: to preempt the criminal action, and if he opts to perform it the action is
(a) the check is presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check; abated’ xxx In this light, the full payment of the amount appearing in the

10
check within five banking days from notice of dishonor is a ‘complete Aside from the above testimony, no other reference was made to the
defense.’ The absence of a notice of dishonor necessarily deprives an demand letter by the prosecution. As can be noticed from the above
accused an opportunity to preclude a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, exchange, the prosecution alleged that the demand letter had been sent by
procedural due process clearly enjoins that a notice of dishonor be actually mail. To prove mailing, it presented a copy of the demand letter as well as
served on petitioner. Petitioner has a right to demand―and the basic the registry return receipt. However, no attempt was made to show that
postulate of fairness require―that the notice of dishonor be actually sent the demand letter was indeed sent through registered mail nor was the
to and received by her to afford her the opportunity to avert prosecution signature on the registry return receipt authenticated or identified. It
under B.P. 22.”17 (Bold emphases supplied) cannot even be gleaned from the testimony of private complainant as to who
sent the demand letter and when the same was sent. In fact, the prosecution
_______________ seems to have presumed that the registry return receipt was proof enough
14 Id., at pp. 456-458. that the demand
15 Id. _______________
16 G.R. No. 119178, June 20, 1997, 274 SCRA 572. 18 Ting v. Court of Appeals, supra note 7, at p. 560.
17 Id., at p. 594.
603
602
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 681, SEPTEMBER 24, 2012 603
Resterio vs. People Resterio vs. People
To prove that he had sent the written notice of dishonor to the petitioner letter was sent through registered mail and that the same was actually
by registered mail, Villadolid presented the registry return receipt for the first received by petitioners or their agents.
notice of dishonor dated June 17, 2002 and the registry return receipt for the As adverted to earlier, it is necessary in cases for violation of Batas
second notice of dishonor dated July 16, 2002. However, the petitioner Pambansa Blg. 22, that the prosecution prove that the issuer had received a
denied receiving the written notices of dishonor. notice of dishonor. It is a general rule that when service of notice is an issue,
The mere presentment of the two registry return receipts was not the person alleging that the notice was served must prove the fact of service
sufficient to establish the fact that written notices of dishonor had been sent (58 Am Jur 2d, Notice, § 45). The burden of proving notice rests upon the
to or served on the petitioner as the issuer of the check. Considering that the party asserting its existence. Now, ordinarily, preponderance of evidence is
sending of the written notices of dishonor had been done by registered mail, sufficient to prove notice. In criminal cases, however, the quantum of proof
the registry return receipts by themselves were not proof of the service on required is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, for Batas Pambansa Blg.
the petitioner without being accompanied by the authenticating affidavit of 22 cases, there should be clear proof of notice. Moreover, it is a general rule
the person or persons who had actually mailed the written notices of that, when service of a notice is sought to be made by mail, it should appear
dishonor, or without the testimony in court of the mailer or mailers on the that the conditions on which the validity of such service depends had
fact of mailing. The authentication by affidavit of the mailer or mailers was existence, otherwise the evidence is insufficient to establish the fact of
necessary in order for the giving of the notices of dishonor by registered service (C.J.S., Notice, § 18). In the instant case, the prosecution did not
mail to be regarded as clear proof of the giving of the notices of dishonor to present proof that the demand letter was sent through registered mail,
predicate the existence of the second element of the offense. No less would relying as it did only on the registry return receipt. In civil cases, service
fulfill the quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt, for, as the Court said made through registered mail is proved by the registry receipt issued by the
in Ting v. Court of Appeals:18 mailing office and an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing
compliance with Section 7 of Rule 13 (See Section 13, Rule 13, 1997 Rules of

11
Civil Procedure). If, in addition to the registry receipt, it is required in civil As we stated in Savage v. Taypin (G.R. No. 134217, May 11, 2000, 311
cases that an affidavit of mailing as proof of service be presented, then with SCRA 397), “penal statutes must be strictly construed against the State and
more reason should we hold in criminal cases that a registry receipt alone liberally in favor of the accused.” Likewise, the prosecution may not rely on
is insufficient as proof of mailing. In the instant case, the prosecution failed the weakness of the evidence for the defense to make up for its own blunders
to present the testimony, or at least the affidavit, of the person mailing that, in prosecuting an offense. Having failed to prove all the elements of the
indeed, the demand letter was sent. xxx offense, petitioners may not thus be convicted for violation of Batas
Moreover, petitioners, during the pre-trial, denied having received the Pambansa Blg. 22. (Bold emphases supplied)
demand letter (p. 135, Rollo). Given petitioners’ denial of receipt of the
demand letter, it behooved the prosecution to present proof that the Also, that the wife of Villadolid verbally informed the petitioner that the
demand letter was indeed sent through registered mail and that the same check had bounced did not satisfy the requirement of showing that written
was received by petitioners. This, the prosecution miserably failed to do. notices of dishonor had been made to and received by the petitioner. The
Instead, it merely presented the demand letter and registry return receipt as verbal notices of dishonor were not effective because it is already set-
if mere presentation of the same was equivalent to proof that some sort of 605
mail matter was received by petitioners. Receipts for registered letters and VOL. 681, SEPTEMBER 24, 2012 605
return receipts do not prove themselves; Resterio vs. People
604 tled that a notice of dishonor must be in writing.19 The Court definitively ruled
on the specific form of the notice of dishonor in Domagsang v. Court of
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Appeals:20
Resterio vs. People Petitioner counters that the lack of a written notice of dishonor is fatal.
they must be properly authenticated in order to serve as proof of receipt of The Court agrees.
the letters (Central Trust Co. v. City of Des Moines, 218 NW 580). While, indeed, Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 does not state that the notice of
Likewise, for notice by mail, it must appear that the same was served on dishonor be in writing, taken in conjunction, however, with Section 3 of the
the addressee or a duly authorized agent of the addressee. In fact, the law, i.e., “that where there are no sufficient funds in or credit with such
registry return receipt itself provides that “[a] registered article must not be drawee bank, such fact shall always be explicitly stated in the notice of
delivered to anyone but the addressee, or upon the addressee’s written dishonor or refusal,” a mere oral notice or demand to pay would appear to
order, in which case the authorized agent must write the addressee’s name be insufficient for conviction under the law. The Court is convinced that both
on the proper space and then affix legibly his own signature below it.” In the spirit and letter of the Bouncing Checks Law would require for the act to
the case at bar, no effort was made to show that the demand letter was be punished thereunder not only that the accused issued a check that is
received by petitioners or their agent. All that we have on record is an illegible dishonored, but that likewise the accused has actually been notified in
signature on the registry receipt as evidence that someone received the writing of the fact of dishonor. The consistent rule is that penal statutes have
letter. As to whether this signature is that of one of the petitioners or of their to be construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.
authorized agent remains a mystery. From the registry receipt alone, it is (Bold emphases supplied; italics in the original text)
possible that petitioners or their authorized agent did receive the demand
letter. Possibilities, however, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable In light of the foregoing, the proof of the guilt of the petitioner for a
doubt. There being insufficient proof that petitioners received notice that violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 for issuing to Villadolid the unfunded
their checks had been dishonored, the presumption that they knew of the Chinabank Check No. LPU-A0141332 in the amount of P50,000.00 did not
insufficiency of the funds therefor cannot arise. satisfy the quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt. According to Section
2 of Rule 133, Rules of Court, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his

12
guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt, which does not mean such a degree 21 1 Wharton, § 1, quoted in Salonga, Philippine Law on Evidence, 3rd Ed.,
of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty; only a 1964, p. 771.
moral certainty is required, or that degree of proof that produces conviction ** Vice Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., who is on leave per Special Order
in an unprejudiced mind. This is the required quantum, firstly, because the No. 1305 dated September 10, 2012.
accused is presumed to be innocent until the
_______________ 607
19 Marigomen v. People, G.R. No. 153451, May 26, 2005, 459 SCRA 169, VOL. 681, SEPTEMBER 24, 2012 607
180. Resterio vs. People
20 G.R. No. 139292, December 5, 2000, 347 SCRA 75, 83-84. Judgment reversed and set aside, petitioner Amada Resterio acquitted,
but ordered to pay Bernardo Villadolid P50,000.00.
606
606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Notes.―A notice of dishonor received by the maker or drawer of the
Resterio vs. People check is thus indispensable before a conviction can ensue. The notice of
contrary is proved, and, secondly, because of the inequality of the position in dishonor may be sent by the offended party or the drawee bank. The notice
which the accused finds herself, with the State being arrayed against her with must be in writing. A mere oral notice to pay a dishonored check will not
its unlimited command of means, with counsel usually of authority and suffice. The lack of a written notice is fatal for the prosecution. (Azarcon vs.
capacity, who are regarded as public officers, “and with an attitude of tranquil People, 622 SCRA 341 [2010])
majesty often in striking contrast to that of (the accused) engaged in a The purpose of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 in declaring the mere issuance of
perturbed and distracting struggle for liberty if not for life.”21 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
Nonetheless, the civil liability of the petitioner in the principal sum of
P50,000.00, being admitted, was established. She was further liable for legal society, to reform and rehabilitate him, and to maintain social order. (Mitra
interest of 6% per annum on that principal sum, reckoned from the filing of vs. People, 623 SCRA 673 [2010])
the information in the trial court. That rate of interest will increase to 12% per ――o0o――
annum upon the finality of this decision.
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision of the G.R. No. 187401. September 17, 2014.*
Court of Appeals promulgated on December 4, 2006, and ACQUITS petitioner
AMADA RESTERIO of the violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 as charged for MA. ROSARIO P. CAMPOS, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and
failure to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. FIRST WOMEN’S CREDIT CORPORATION, respondents.
The Court ORDERS the petitioner to pay to BERNARDO VILLADOLID the
amount of P50,000.00, representing the face value of Chinabank Check No. Criminal Law; Batas Pambansa Blg. 22; Elements of.—To be liable for
LPU-A0141332, with legal interest of 6% per annum from the filing of the violation of B.P. 22, the following essential elements must be present: (1) the
information until the finality of this decision, and thereafter 12% per making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value;
annum until the principal amount of P50,000.00 is paid. (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he
No pronouncement on costs of suit. does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the
SO ORDERED. payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent
Sereno (C.J.), Leonardo-De Castro, Brion** and Reyes, JJ., concur. 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.
13
 Same; Same; Notice of Dishonor; In a line of cases, the Supreme Court REYES, J.:
(SC) has emphasized the importance of proof of receipt of such notice of
dishonor, although not as an element of the offense, but as a means to This resolves the petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner Ma.
establish that the issuer of a check was aware of insufficiency of funds when Rosario P. Campos (Campos) to assail the Decision1 dated July 21, 2008 and
he issued the check and the bank dishonored it, in relation to the second Resolution2 dated February 16, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R.
element of the offense and Section 2 of Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 22.—In a CR No. 31468, which affirmed the conviction of Campos for fourteen (14)
line of cases, the Court has emphasized the importance of proof of receipt of counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22), otherwise known
such notice of dishonor, although not as an element of the offense, but as a as The Bouncing Checks Law.
means to establish that the issuer of a check was aware of insufficiency of On March 17, 1995, Campos obtained a loan, payable on installments,
funds when he issued the check and the bank dishonored it, in relation to the from respondent First Women’s Credit Corporation (FWCC) in the amount of
second element of the offense and Section 2 of B.P. 22. Considering that the P50,000.00. She issued several postdated checks in favor of FWCC to cover
second element involves a state of mind which is difficult to establish, Section the agreed installment payments.3 Fourteen of these checks drawn against
2 of B.P. 22 creates a presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds, as _______________
it reads: Sec. 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds.—The making,
drawing, and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee 1 Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now a member
because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when presented of this Court), with Associate Justices Lucas P. Bersamin (now a member of
within ninety days from the date of the check, shall be prima facie evidence this Court) and Sixto C. Marella, Jr., concurring; Rollo, pp. 27-33.
of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless 2 Id., at p. 35.
* THIRD DIVISION. 3 Id., at pp. 27-28.

374 375
VOL. 735, SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 375
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Campos vs. People
Campos vs. People her Current Account No. 6005-05449-92 with BPI Family Bank-Head Office,
such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, however, were dishonored when presented for payment, particularly:
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 Check No. Date Amount
been paid by the drawee. In the instant case, both the RTC and the CA 138609 August 15, 1995 P3,333.33
affirmed the MeTC’s finding that the required notice of dishonor from FWCC 138610 August 30, 1995 P3,333.33
was received by Campos. Campos, nonetheless, still maintains that her 138611 September 15, 1995 P3,333.33
personal receipt of the notice was not sufficiently established, considering 138612 September 30, 1995 P3,333.33
that only a written copy of the letter and the registry return receipt covering 138613 October 15, 1995 P3,333.33
it were presented by the prosecution. 138614 October 30, 1995 P3,333.33
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court 138615 November 15, 1995 P3,333.33
of Appeals. 138616 November 30, 1995 P3,333.33
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court. 138617 December 15, 1995 P3,333.33
138618 December 31, 1995 P3,333.33
RESOLUTION 138619 January 15, 1996 P3,333.33
14
 138620 January 31, 1996 P3,333.33 16, 2009. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari which cites the
138621 February 15, 1996 P3,333.33 following issues:
138622 February 28, 1996 P3,333.33
P46,666.62 1. WHETHER OR NOT A DEMAND LETTER THAT WAS SENT THROUGH
The checks were declared by the drawee bank to be drawn against a REGISTERED MAIL IS SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF [B.P. 22]
“closed account.”4 AS TO KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACT OF THE DISHONOR OF THE SUBJECT
After Campos failed to satisfy her outstanding obligation with FWCC CHECKS.
despite demand, she was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) 2. WHETHER OR NOT [CAMPOS’] WANT OF INFORMATION OF THE FACT
of Pasay City, Branch 48, with violations of B.P. 22. Campos was tried in OF THE CHECKS’ DISHONOR AND HER SUBSEQUENT ARRANGEMENTS FOR
absentia, as she failed to attend court proceedings after being arraigned.5 THEIR PAYMENT [ARE] TANTAMOUNT TO GOOD FAITH SO AS TO PERSUADE
On December 7, 1999, the MeTC rendered its decision with dispositive THIS HONOR-
portion that reads: _______________
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, the accused is hereby
CONVICTED of fourteen (14) counts of 6 Rollo, p. 29.
_______________ 7 Id.
8 Id., at pp. 27-33.
4 Id., at pp. 85-86. 9 Id., at p. 35.
5 Id., at p. 28; CA Rollo, p. 55.
377
376
VOL. 735, SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 377
376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Campos vs. People
Campos vs. People ABLE SUPREME COURT TO EXERCISE ITS EQUITY POWERS AND TO LEND
violations of BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22. She is hereby sentenced to suffer SUCCOR TO [CAMPOS’] CASE.10
the penalty of six (6) months imprisonment for each violation and to
indemnify the complainant the sum of P46,666.62 representing the total
Campos argues that the crime’s element requiring her knowledge at the
value of the checks, plus legal interest from date of default until full payment.
With costs. time of the check’s issuance that she did not have sufficient funds with the
SO ORDERED.6 drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon presentment was not
established by the prosecution. She denies having received a notice of
dishonor from FWCC. Insisting on an acquittal, Campos discredits the MeTC’s
Feeling aggrieved, Campos appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). On reliance on a supposed notice of dishonor that was sent to her by FWCC
July 30, 2007, the RTC of Pasay City, Branch 108 rendered its decision through registered mail. She also invokes good faith as she allegedly made
upholding Campos’ conviction. A motion for reconsideration filed by Campos arrangements with FWCC for the payment of her obligation after the subject
was denied for lack of merit.7 checks were dishonored.
The petition lacks merit.
Unyielding, Campos appealed the RTC decision to the CA, which rendered To be liable for violation of B.P. 22, the following essential elements must
on July 21, 2008 its decision8 affirming the ruling of the RTC. Campos moved be present: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for
to reconsider, but her motion was denied via a Resolution9 dated February account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that
15
at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the In the instant case, both the RTC and the CA affirmed the MeTC’s finding
drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and that the required notice of dishonor from FWCC was received by Campos.
(3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency Campos, nonetheless, still maintains that her personal receipt of the notice
of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, was not sufficiently established, considering that only a written copy of the
without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.11 letter and the registry return receipt covering it were presented by the
The presence of the first and third elements is undisputed. An issue being prosecution.
advanced by Campos through the present petition concerns her alleged The Court has in truth repeatedly held that the mere presentation of
failure to receive a written demand letter from FWCC, the entity in whose registry return receipts that cover registered mail was not sufficient to
favor the dishonored checks were issued. In a line of cases, the Court has establish that written notices of dishonor had been sent to or served on
emphasized the importance of proof of receipt of such notice of issuers of checks. The authenti-
_______________ _______________

10 Id., at pp. 16-17. 12 See Resterio v. People, G.R. No. 177438, September 24, 2012, 681
11 San Mateo v. People, G.R. No. 200090, March 6, 2013, 692 SCRA 660, SCRA 592, 601; Alferez v. People, G.R. No. 182301, January 31, 2011, 641 SCRA
665. 116, 120; Moster v. People, 569 Phil. 616, 626; 546 SCRA 287, 298 (2008).
13 Alferez v. People, id., at p. 122.
378
378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 379
Campos vs. People VOL. 735, SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 379
12 Campos vs. People
dishonor, although not as an element of the offense, but as a means to
establish that the issuer of a check was aware of insufficiency of funds when cation by affidavit of the mailers was necessary in order for service by
he issued the check and the bank dishonored it, in relation to the second registered mail to be regarded as clear proof of the giving of notices of
element of the offense and Section 2 of B.P. 22. Considering that the second dishonor and to predicate the existence of the second element of the
element involves a state of mind which is difficult to establish, Section 2 of offense.14
B.P. 22 creates a presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds,13 as it In still finding no merit in the present petition, the Court, however,
reads: considers Campos’ defense that she exerted efforts to reach an amicable
settlement with her creditor after the checks which she issued were
Sec. 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. dishonored by the drawee bank, BPI Family Bank. Campos categorically
—The making, drawing, and issuance of a check payment of which is refused declared in her petition that, “[she] has in her favor evidence to show that
by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when she was in good faith and indeed made arrangements for the payment of her
presented within ninety days from the date of the check, shall be prima obligations subsequently after the dishonor of the checks.”15 Clearly, this
facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless statement was a confirmation that she actually received the required notice
such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or of dishonor from FWCC. The evidence referred to in her statement were
makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within receipts16 dated January 13, 1996, February 29, 1996, April 22, 1998 and May
five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid 26, 1998 issued by FWCC to Campos for payments in various amounts ranging
by the drawee. from P2,500.00 to P15,700.00. Campos would not have entered into the
alleged arrangements beginning January 1996 until May 1998 if she had not

16
received a notice of dishonor from her creditor, and had no knowledge of the The gravamen of the offense punished by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is the
insufficiency of her funds with the bank and the dishonor of her checks. act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored
Campos could have avoided prosecution by paying the amounts due on upon its presentation for payment. (Gaditano vs. San Miguel
the checks or making arrangements for payment in full within five (5) days Corporation, 702 SCRA 191 [2013])
after receiving notice. Unfortunately for Campos, these circumstances were ——o0o——
not established in the instant case. She failed to sufficiently disclose the terms
of her alleged arrangement with FWCC, and to establish that the same had _______________
been fully complied with so as to completely satisfy the amounts covered by
the subject checks. Moreover, documents to prove such fact should have
been
_______________

14 Resterio v. People, supra note 12 at p. 602.

15 Rollo, p. 20. (emphasis ours)
16 Id., at pp. 36-37.
380
380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Campos vs. People
presented before the MeTC during the trial, yet Campos opted to be tried in
absentia, and thus waived her right to present evidence. While Campos
blamed her former counsel for alleged negligence that led to her failure to be
present during the trial,17 it is settled that the negligence of counsel binds his
or her client. Given the circumstances, the Court finds no cogent reason to
reverse the ruling of the CA which affirmed the conviction of Campos.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated July 21, 2008 and
Resolution dated February 16, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR
No. 31468 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Villarama, Jr. and Jardeleza, JJ.,
concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
Notes.—It is not enough for the prosecution to prove that a notice of
dishonor was sent to the accused. The prosecution must also prove actual
receipt of said notice, because the fact of service provided for in the law is
reckoned from receipt of such notice of dishonor by the accused. (San Mateo
vs. People, 692 SCRA 660 [2013])
17