|
G.R. No. 177438 – 695 Phil. 693 – 681 SCRA 592 – Criminal Law – Special Penal Laws – Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 – Notice of Dishonor
In May 2002, Amada Resterio issued a Chinabank check worth P50k to Bernardo Villadolid. When the check became due, Bernardo tried to encash the check but it was dishonored because the account was closed. Thereafter, Bernardo sent two notices of dishonor to Resterio. The notices were sent via registered mail. Resterio however failed to make good the said check. Hence, Bernardo filed a case against Resterio for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22; Anti-Bouncing Checks Law).
During trial, Bernardo presented the registry return receipts as proof that the notices of dishonor were sent to and received by Resterio.
Resterio was convicted by the trial court and her conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
On appeal, Resterio argued that:
1. she is not the owner of the check she issued nor does she own the bank account against which the check was drawn;
2. she never received a notice of dishonor.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not BP 22 applies if the issuer of the check is not the account owner/check owner.
2. Whether or not the issuer of a bouncing check may be convicted without proof that a notice of dishonor was sent to her.
HELD:
1. Yes, it applies. BP 22 does not make a distinction. The law did not look either at the actual ownership of the check or of the account against which it was made, drawn, or issued, or at the intention of the drawee, maker, or issuer. As such, even if Resterio does not own the check she issued, the mere fact she issued a worthless check, she can still be prosecuted for violation of BP 22. However, as discussed below, her guilt was not proven.
2. No. There must be sufficient proof that a notice of dishonor was sent to the issuer of the check. Further, the notice of dishonor must be in writing. Oral or verbal notice is not sufficient. The notice must be actually received by none other than the issuer. The reason for this rule is that the law gives her a chance to make good the check. Without such notice, she is being deprived of that chance. Further, the giving of notice gives rise to the presumption that the issuer has knowledge of the insufficiency of funds – an element of the crime under BP 22. And if despite such knowledge, the issuer refuses or fails to pay the amount of the check within 5 days from the receipt of the notice of dishonor, the issuer becomes liable for violation of BP 22.
But in this case, the written notices were sent via registered mail and the registry return receipts/cards were even presented in court, is that not sufficient to convict Resterio?
No. The mere presentment of the two registry return receipts was not sufficient to establish the fact that written notices of dishonor had been sent to or served on Resterio as the issuer of the check. Considering that the sending of the written notices of dishonor had been done by registered mail, the registry return receipts by themselves were not proof of the service on Resterio without being accompanied by the authenticating affidavit of the person or persons who had actually mailed the written notices of dishonor, or without the testimony in court of the mailer or mailers on the fact of mailing. The authentication by affidavit of the mailer or mailers was necessary in order for the giving of the notices of dishonor by registered mail to be regarded as clear proof of the giving of the notices of dishonor to predicate the existence of the second element of the offense.
Why so strict?
This is in keeping with the constitutionally guaranteed right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
|
