Galita, Chloe Anne S.
(17-167510)
Chua v. People (G.R. No. 196853, July 13, 2015)
FACTS:
Chua and private complainant Philip See were long-time friends and neighbors. On different dates from
1992 until 1993, Chua issued several postdated PSBank checks of varying amounts to See pursuant to
their rediscounting arrangement at a 3% rate. However, See claimed that when he deposited the checks,
they were dishonored either due to insufficient funds or closed account. Despite demands, Chua failed to
make good the checks. Hence, See filed in December 23 1993 a Complaint for violations of BP 22 before
the OPP of QC. He attached thereto a demand letter dated December 10, 1993.
The prosecutor found probable cause and recommended the filing of charges against Chua before the
MeTC of QC.
In his defense, he maintained that the demand letter attached by See in the complaint, among others, does
not contain Chua's signature that would serve as proof of his actual receipt thereof, that the purported
demand letter was still blank when presented to him for signature, and that he signed the same for another
purpose. The defense then surmised that the prosecution fabricated the demand letter to remedy the lack
of a proper notice of dishonor upon Chua. They also argued that while the demand letter contains Chua's
signature, the same should not be given any probative value since it does not contain the date when he
allegedly received the same. Hence, there is simply no way of reckoning the crucial five-day period that
the law affords an issuer to make good the check from the date of his notice of its dishonor.
Nonetheless, MeTC convicted Chua of violations of BP 22. The RTC and the CA affirmed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Chua is correctly held liable for violation of BP 22;
HELD:
No. The prosecution failed to prove all the elements of the offenses charged.
In order to successfully hold an accused liable for violation of BP 22, the following essential elements
must be present: "(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 br 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, witjhout any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment."
In the instant case, what is in dispute is the existence of the second element. The Court has discussed the
importance of proving the date of actual receipt of the notice of dishonor, that is, it is not enough to
establish that a check issued was subsequently dishonored. It must be shown further that the person who
issued the check knew '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.' And because this element
involves a state of mind which is difficult to establish, Section 2 of BP 22 creates a presumption of
knowledge of insufficiency of funds, which, however, arises only after it is proved that the issuer had
received a written notice of dishonor and that within five days from receipt thereof, he failed to pay the
amount of the check or to make arrangements for its payment.
Thus, if such notice of non-payment by the drawee bank is not sent to the maker or drawer of the bum
check, or if there is no proof as to when such notice was received by the drawer, then the presumption
or prima facie evidence as provided in Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 cannot arise, since there would
simply be no way of reckoning the crucial 5-day period."
In the present case, there is no way to ascertain when the five-day period under Section 22 of BP 22
would start and end since there is no showing when Chua actually received the demand letter. The MeTC
cannot simply presume that the date of the demand letter was likewise the date of Chua's receipt thereof.
Given also Chua's reasons of denial, it behooved upon the prosecution to present proof of his actual
receipt of the demand letter. However, all that the prosecution did was to present it without adducing any
evidence as to the date of Chua's actual receipt thereof. It must be stressed that the prosecution must also
prove actual receipt of the notice of dishonor because the fact of service provided for in the law is
reckoned from receipt of such notice of dishonor by the accused. And since the quantum of proof required
is proof beyond reasonable doubt, for B.P. Blg. 22 cases, there should be clear proof of notice" which the
Court finds wanting in this case.
However, an acquittal based on lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not preclude the award of
civil damages. For this reason, Chua must be directed to restitute See the total amount of the face value of
all the checks with legal interest reckoned from the time the said checks became due and demandable
until fully paid.
People vs. Manabat Y Dumagay (G.R. No. 242947, July 17, 2019)
FACTS:
Two informations were filed against Manabat which stated that in the evening of the 17 th of June 2013 in
ABC Printing Press, Dipolog City, Manabat sold to a poseur-buyer one small transparent plastic sachet of
a substance more popularly known as "Shabu" for which he received a marked Five Hundred Peso bill.
The second information stated that at the same incident, he has in his possession and control nine pieces
small transparent also allegedly containing the same illegal drug. Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded
not guilty to both charges. Thereafter, joint pre-trial and trial of Criminal Case Nos. 18353 and 18354
ensued.
The defense, for its part, presented Manabat himself as its sole witness. He testified that there was no buy
bust operation conducted against him as he was just grappled by persons near Casa Jose. He testified that
he was just on his way home on a motorcab, when two motorcycles with two unknown riders each,
blocked their way. Mario did not alight from the motorcab but a person pointed a gun at him. For said
reason, Mario alighted.
He recalled, however, that there were other persons who arrived after 30 minutes. His wallet and
cellphone were taken and he was surprised that they took "something contained in a cellophane". They
also took P500 from his pocket, which he denies owning because he had only P70 in his possession.
There was also no lawyer during the search and inventory.
The RTC convicted Manabat of the crimes charged and the CA affirmed the RTC's conviction. Hence, the
instant appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not both the RTC and CA is correct in convicting accused-appellant Manabat of the crimes
charged.
HELD:
No. The Court acquits Manabat for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In buy-bust operations, while it is true that the same is a legally effective and proven procedure,
sanctioned by law, for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors, the law nevertheless also
requires strict compliance with procedures laid down by it to ensure that rights are safeguarded.
The three required witnesses not being complied with;
Among the procedure that police operatives must follow under RA 9165 to maintain the integrity of the
confiscated drugs used as evidence, was the requirement that the physical inventory of the seized items
and the photographing of the same immediately after seizure and confiscation must be done in the
presence of the required witness, all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof. The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the physical
inventory and photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at
the place of apprehension. It is only when the same is not practicable that the IRR allows the inventory
and photographing to be done as soon as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the
nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. In this connection, this also means that the three
required witnesses should already be physically present at the time of apprehension - a requirement
that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its
nature, a planned activity. Verily, a buy-bust team normally has enough time to gather and bring with it
the said witnesses.
In this case, the buy-bust operation was not conducted in accordance with law. The witnesses were called
and eventually arrived at the scene of the crime only after the accused-appellant was already
apprehended by PO2 Barral. On cross-examination, One of the apprehending officers readily admitted
that during the apprehension, the witnesses were not present. Considering that the buy-bust operation was
conducted seven days after the day it received information about accused-appellant and was instructed to
conduct the buy-bust operation, the apprehending team had more than enough time to ensure that all the
mandatory procedures for the conduct of the buy-bust operation would be sufficiently met.
The Certificate of Inventory being irregularly executed;
The law also requires that the copies of the inventory should be signed by all the following persons: (a)
accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the
media, and (d) a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ).
In this case, the Certificate of Inventory itself reveals that the document was not signed by accused-
appellant Manabat or by his counsel or representative. Nor did the prosecution provide any explanation
whatsoever as to why accused-appellant Manabat was not able to sign the Certificate of Inventory.
The marking of the plastic sachets allegedly recovered was irregularly done;
In the instant case, as incontrovertibly revealed by the photographs of the plastic sachets allegedly
retrieved from accused-appellant Manabat, only the date and initials of the seizing officers were inscribed
on the specimens. The time and place of the buy-bust operation were not indicated in the markings, in
clear contravention of the PNP's own set of procedures for the conduct of buy-bust operations.
At this juncture, it is well to point-out that while the RTC and CA were correct in stating that denial is an
inherently weak defense, it grievously erred in using the same principle to convict accused-appellant
Manabat. Both the RTC and CA overlooked the long-standing legal tenet that the starting point of every
criminal prosecution is that the accused has the constitutional right to be presumed innocent. And this
presumption of innocence is overturned only when the prosecution has discharged its burden of proof in
criminal cases and has proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is also worth
emphasizing that this burden of proof never shifts. Indeed, the accused need not present a single piece of
evidence in his defense if the State has not discharged its onus. The accused can simply rely on his right
to be presumed innocent. It is thus immaterial, in this case or in any other cases involving dangerous
drugs, that the accused put forth a weak defense.
To reiterate, breaches of the procedure committed by the police officers, left unacknowledged and
unexplained by the State, militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused
as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti would have been compromised.
