Republic of The Philippines

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
Branch
City of Manila

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff, CRIM. CASE NO. Q-08-152651
- versus - FOR: Violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22

Henry Chao
Accused.
X==========================/

MEMORANDUM OF THE ACCUSED

BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE

This is a case for five (5) counts of Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22) filed by
the complainant Ben Que alleging among others that on June 01, 2011, the accused borrowed from
complainant the amount of P50,000.00 which accused promised to pay in five (5) equal monthly
installments of P12,500.00 with an agreed 5% monthly interest. The accused executed and handed
over the five (5) instruments to complainant on June 01, 2011 at complainant’s residence in
Mandaluyong City.

EVIDENCE FOR THE ACCUSED

In response to the case filed against him, the accused testified that he is only a manager for
Atlas Parts and the he does not currently own Account No. 123456 maintained at Alloy Bank,
Pasong Tamo Branch. It was also shown by evidence that the money loaned by the complainant to
the accused was not used by the latter for his personal benefit. Additionally, it was also shown
during trial that accused did not able to receive any demand letter from complainant because he
was no longer connected with Atlas Parts since the middle of June 2011, which made him unaware
of his dishonored payment to complainant.

ISSUE
Whether or not the accused is guilty of Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22

ARGUMENTS
THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF MANILA HAS NO JURISDICTION
TESTIMONY OF MR. BEN QUE

P. Prosecutor: When and where did the accused execute and hand over to you these five
(5) instruments

Witness: On June 01, 2011, at my house in Mandaluyong City, after I gave him in
cash the P50,000.00 that he loaned.

In Isip v. People (G.R. No. 170298, June 26, 2007) the Court ruled that the concept of
venue of actions in criminal cases, unlike in civil cases, is jurisdictional. The place where the crime
was committed determines not only the venue of the action but is an essential element of
jurisdiction. For jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases, the offense should have
been committed or any one of its essential ingredients should have taken place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court. Thus, a court cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an
offense allegedly committed outside of that limited territory. However, if the evidence adduced
during the trial shows that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss
the action for want of jurisdiction.
Also, Section 1 of B.P. 22 makes 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
liable for violation of B.P. 22.
Based on the court record, accused issued the five (5) instrument at complainant’s house
in Mandaluyong City. For that reason, accused allegedly violated B.P. 22 in Mandaluyong.
However, the case was filed in Manila particularly at the Metropolitan Trial Court Manila. Hence,
the Manila court does not have jurisdiction over accused and the court should dismiss the case for
lack of jurisdiction as stipulated in Isip v. People.

NO DEMAND LETTER WAS RECEIVED BY THE ACCUSED

TESTIMONY OF MR. BEN QUE

P. Prosecutor: I request that the demand letter be marked as Exhibit F and that the
Registry Receipt No. 321 dated January 2, 2012 posted at Mandaluyong City Post Office be
marked as Exhibit G for the prosecution.

COURT: Mark it then.

P. Prosecutor: Do you know if accused actually received your letter sent by registered
mail?

Witness: I assumed that he had received it because the registered letter was not
returned to me.

TESTIMONY OF MR. HENRY CHAO

D. Counsel: Did you receive the demand letter sent to you by Mr. Que after the dishonor?
Witness: No, sir.

In Alferez v. People (G.R. No. 182301, January 31, 2011), the Court said that it is not
enough for the prosecution to prove that a notice of dishonor was sent to the drawee of the check.
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 drawee of the check.
Furthermore, the Court also stressed that for B.P. 22 cases, there should be clear proof of notice.
For notice by mail, it must appear that the same was served on the addressee or a duly authorized
agent of the addressee.

Based on the court transcript, it is clear that accused did not receive any kind of demand
letter from complainant. Even the complainant is not sure whether or not the accused was actually
able to receive the demand letter he sent. According to the complainant, he only assumed that the
accused received the demand letter because it was not returned to him. Applying the case of
Alferez v. People, the evidence is weak against the accused.

Additionally, it was also held in Alferez v. People that a copy of the demand letter together
with the registry receipt and the return card must be properly authenticated to serve as proof of
receipt and that the presentation of the registry card with an unauthenticated signature, does not
meet the require proof beyond reasonable doubt that it was actually received

The court record showed that there was no attempt to authenticate the validity of the
demand letter which was marked Exhibit G and the Registry Reciept No. 321 dated January 2,
2012 marked as Exhibit G. All these evidences were just simply admitted into evidence without
conducting any verification as to its authenticity. Hence, the evidence admitted into evidence by
the prosecution is weak and cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused.

ACCUSED NOT NOTIFIED OF DISHONOR

TESTIMONY OF MR. HENRY CHAO

D. Counsel: During the due dates of the NOW slips that you issued to Mr. Que, were
you still the Manager of Atlas Parts?
Witness: Not anymore, sir, because in the middle of June 2011, I resigned as
Manager, and I was not aware of the dishonor.

It is worth noting that all the five (5) instruments were dishonored after the accused
resigned from his post as Manager of Atlas Parts.

P. Prosecutor: May I request that No. 0001 dated July 1, 2011 in the amount of P12,500.00
be marked as Exhibit A for the prosecution; No. 0002 dated August 1, 2011 also in the same
amount as Exhibit B; No. 0003 dated September 2, 2011 as Exhibit C; No. 0004 dated October 1,
2011, as Exhibit D; and No. 0005 dated November 1, 2011, as Exhibit E.

The due dates of the instruments happened when accused was no longer connected with
Atlas Parts making him unaware of any dishonor of the instruments.
 As ruled by the Court in Ambito v. People (G.R. No. 127327, February 13, 2009), Under
B.P. 22, the prosecution must prove not only that the accused issued a check that was subsequently
dishonored. It must also establish that the accused was actually notified that the check was
dishonored, and that he or she failed, within five (5) banking days from receipt of the notice, to
pay the holder of the check the amount due thereon or to make arrangement for its payment. Absent
proof that the accused received such notice, a prosecution for violation of the Bouncing Check
Law cannot prosper.

The record clearly prove that the accused was not able to receive any kind of notice of
dishonor and applying Ambito v. People, the prosecution of the accused for violation of the B.P.
22 cannot prosper. As further stated in Ambito v. People, the absence of a notice of dishonor
necessarily deprives an accused an opportunity to preclude a criminal prosecution. Accordingly,
procedural due process clearly enjoins that a notice of dishonor be actually sent to and received by
the accused. The accused has a right to demand – and the basic postulates of fairness require – that
the notice of dishonor be actually sent to and received by the same to afford him/her the
opportunity to avert prosecution under B.P. 22.

ACCUSED HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF INSUFFICIENCY

TESTMONY OF MR. HENRY CHAO

D. Counsel: Do you own NOW Account No. 123456 maintained at Alloy Bank, Pasong
Tamo Branch?

Witness: No, sir. That is owned by my employer Atlas Parts and, as the Manager, I
am the signatory.

The record proves that the accused does not own nor maintain the bank account where the
instruments were drawn, and subsequently dishonor. The bank account in question is owned and
maintained by Atlas Parts and not of the accused. There is no compelling proof that the accused
was privy to the availability of funds nor the status of that bank account.

As provided for by the Court in Gosiaco v. Ching (G.R. No. 173807, April 16, 2009), in
the B. P. 22 case, what the trial court should determine is whether or not the signatory had signed
the check with knowledge of the insufficiency of funds or credit in the bank account.

It has already been proved that the accused signed the five (5) instruments because he is
the authorized signatory since he was the former manager of Atlas Parts. However, the prosecution
was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has the knowledge regarding the
insufficiency of duns or credit in the bank account.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

NO VIOLATION OF BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22 AS ALLEGED TRANSPIRED. This

is clear as based on the following facts:
 (1.) The Metropolitan Trial Court has no jurisdiction over the accused since the alleged
violation of B.P. 22 happened in Mandaluyong City;
(2) No demand letter was sent to the accused;
(3) The accused was not notified of the dishonor of the five (5) instrument;
(4) No knowledge of insufficiency of the bank account.

These facts as shown in the case prove the fact that the prosecution was not able to prove the
accused guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, following the precedence laid down by the
Court in the abovementioned cases, the immediate acquittal of the accused is warranted.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable

Court that the accused be acquitted from the present charge of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 for the
failure of the prosecution to prove the accused guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

City of Manila, Philippines, May 15, 2020

ALICIA GERTRUDES B. GALAN

Counsel for the Accused
Guiguinto, Bulacan