Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Dino V Ca

    Uploaded by

    Alexir Mendoza
    4 views1 page
    Dino was accused of issuing three bounced checks to a credit card company in violation of BP Blg 22. However, the requirements of BP Blg 22 were not met. Specifically, the notice of dishonor was issued before the checks became due and before they were deposited, which is not a proper notice under the law. For liability to attach under BP Blg 22, it must be proven that the accused knew there were insufficient funds at the time the checks were issued. A notice of dishonor sent after presentment can create a presumption of this knowledge, but no such notice was sent in this case as the checks had not yet been presented to the bank when notice was sent. Therefore, Dino was not found to have

    Original Description:

    Notice of Dishonor Topic digest

    Original Title

    Dino v Ca

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Dino was accused of issuing three bounced checks to a credit card company in violation of BP Blg 22. However, the requirements of BP Blg 22 were not met. Specifically, the notice of dishonor was issued before the checks became due and before they were deposited, which is not a proper notice under the law. For liability to attach under BP Blg 22, it must be proven that the accused knew there were insufficient funds at the time the checks were issued. A notice of dishonor sent after presentment can create a presumption of this knowledge, but no such notice was sent in this case as the checks had not yet been presented to the bank when notice was sent. Therefore, Dino was not found to have

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    4 views1 page

    Dino V Ca

    Uploaded by

    Alexir Mendoza
    Dino was accused of issuing three bounced checks to a credit card company in violation of BP Blg 22. However, the requirements of BP Blg 22 were not met. Specifically, the notice of dishonor was issued before the checks became due and before they were deposited, which is not a proper notice under the law. For liability to attach under BP Blg 22, it must be proven that the accused knew there were insufficient funds at the time the checks were issued. A notice of dishonor sent after presentment can create a presumption of this knowledge, but no such notice was sent in this case as the checks had not yet been presented to the bank when notice was sent. Therefore, Dino was not found to have

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    JAIME DICO v. HON.

    COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE


    PHILIPPINES
    G.R. NO. 141669, February 28, 2005
    CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
    Facts:
    Dino, accused, is a credit card holder of the Equitable Card Network.
    He’s accused of 3 violations of B.P. Blg. 22, because the three (3) checks
    which the accused issued in its favor, and in payment of his obligation to the
    complainant card network all bounced, for reason "Account Closed". The
    complainant sent a letter to the accused to redeem or pay the amounts of
    the checks, but the accused refused to comply, hence, the filing of these
    cases in Court.
    Issue: Were the requirements under B.P. BLG. 22 met?
    Ruling:
    1. No, as the notice of dishonor was not properly made as it was issued
    before the check in question became due and before it was deposited.
    To hold a person liable under B.P. Blg. 22, the prosecution must not
    only establish that a check was issued and that the same was subsequently
    dishonored, it must further be shown that accused knew at the time of the
    issuance of the check that he did not have sufficient funds or credit with the
    drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment.
    This knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit at the time of the
    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 check, which is difficult to prove, Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 creates
    a prima facie presumption of such knowledge.
    The presumption is brought into existence only after it is proved that
    the issuer had received a 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. The presumption or prima facie evidence
    cannot arise, if such notice of nonpayment by the drawee bank is not sent to
    the maker or drawer, or if there is no proof as to when such notice was
    received by the drawer, since there would simply be no way of reckoning the
    crucial 5-day period. It is indispensable, must be sent by either the offended
    party or the drawee bank, and, must be in writing.
    The notice of dishonor, in this case was not one contemplated by law
    as “notice of dishonor” denotes that a check had already been presented to
    the bank; however, the check had not yet been presented when said notice
    was sent to Dino.

    You might also like