Republic of the Philippines

Metropolitan Trial Court in Makati

Branch 66
Makati City Hall, J.P Rizal St., Makati City

BEN QUE., Criminal Case No.

Plaintiff, 1234 ?

versus

For: Violation of BP 22
HENRY CHAO.,
Accused.

MEMORANDUM
(For the Complainants)

COMES NOW THE COMPLAINANT, through the undersigned counsels, unto

this Honorable Court most respectfully submits and present this Memorandum:

Preliminary Statement

This is a case at bar is a blatant violation of the Bouncing Check Law. Here, the
accused was specifically required the issuance of checks to facilitate and ensure the
payment of the obligation but when the complainant deposited the said instrument, they
were dishonored by the bank for the reason Account Closed. Violation of the Bouncing
Check Law is malum prohibitum. The law was enacted to maintain faith in bank
instruments for utilization in commercial transactions. The reason of the law is its spirit.
We have to apply the spirit of the law.

PARTIES

1. Complainant BEN QUE (BEN), are of legal age, and maybe served with
notices and other legal processes at 123 Tridalo St., Mandaluyong City.

2. Respondent HENRY CHAO (HENRY), of legal age, and maybe served

with notices and other legal processes at 007 Malugay St., Malabon City.
 FACTS

3. That on June 1, 2011, the accused who is the manager of Atlas Parts
borrowed money in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000) with 5% monthly
interest, payable in five (5) equal monthly installments of P 12,500.00, the money will
be used to pay for their stocks evidenced by five (5) checks issued by the accused
for that effect.

4. That the said check which represents the installment of payments of the
accused’s obligation was deposited in BOD Manila City Hall Branch but the said
checks were dishonored by the drawee, Alloy Bank because the said account was
already closed.

5. That the complainant personally went to the accuse to demand for the
payment thereof but was ignored and that he sent letter thru registered mail to the
accused on January 2, 201 in his office at Malugay Street, Malabon City and that the
accused received it because the registered letter was not return to the complainant.

ISSUE

I.

WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE UNDER BP 22 AS THE

MANAGER OF ATLAS PARTS

II.

WHETHER OR NOT THE ALLEGED “NEGOTIABLE ORDER OF WITHDRAWAL”

SLIPS ARE CONSIDERED NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT

DISCUSSION

I.

WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE UNDER BP 22 AS THE MANAGER

OF ATLAS PARTS

The Bouncing Check Law Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, Section 1 provides:

Section 1. Checks without sufficient funds. - 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 in or credit with the drawee bank for the
payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check is subsequently
dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have
 been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid
reason, ordered the bank to stop payment, shall be punished by imprisonment of
not less than thirty (30) days but not more than one (1) year or by a fine of not less
than but not more than double the amount of the check which fine shall in no case
exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the
discretion of the court. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who,
having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws
and issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to
cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of ninety (90) days
from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee
bank.

Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person or

persons who actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer shall be
liable under this Act.

The law clearly provides that where the check is drawn by a corporation, company
or entity, the person or person who actually signed the check in behalf is such drawer
shall be liable. Mr. Chao, being the manager, undersigned the said instrument in behalf
of Atlas Parts.

In Gosiaco vs. Ching, the Supreme Court had the chance to emphasize the
distinct liability of the signatory of the check and the corporation:

“B.P. Big. 22 imposes a distinct civil liability on the signatory of the check which is
distinct from the civil liability of the corporation for the amount represented from the
check. The civil liability attaching to the signatory arises from the wrongful act of
signing the check despite the insufficiency of funds in the account, while the civil
liability attaching to the corporation is itself the very obligation covered by the
check or the consideration for its execution.1

Furthermore, Section 2 of BP 22 provides that the mere making, drawing, and

issuance of dishonored check shall constitute as prima facie evidence to be held liable
thereof:

Section 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. - The making,

drawing and issuance of a check, payment of which is refused by the drawee
because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank when presented within
ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima facie evidence of
knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer
pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, 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 been paid by the drawee.
The Court, in the case of Lozano vs. Hon. Martinez, explained the spirit behind
BP 22. It held that:
1
Gosiaco vs. Ching G.R. No. 173807, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 471
 “The gravemen of the offense punished by B.P. 22 is the act of making and issuing
a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment.
It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes. The law is not
intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is to
prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting
them in circulation. Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the
practice is proscribed by law. The law punishes the act not as an offense against
property, but an offense against public order.” 2

In the case, the reason of the dishonor is “Acount Closed,” and not just
insufficiency of funds. In short there is actual proof of lack of credit with the drawee
bank. The account is already closed and accused cannot even make a deposit
anymore.

II.

WHETHER OR NOT THE ALLEGED “NEGOTIABLE ORDER OF WITHDRAWAL”

SLIPS ARE CONSIDERED NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT

Section 1. Form of negotiable instruments. - An instrument to be negotiable must

conform to the following requirements:
(a) It must be in writing and signed by the maker or drawer;
(b) Must contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money;
(c) Must be payable on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time;
(d) Must be payable to order or to bearer; and
(e) Where the instrument is addressed to a drawee, he must be named or otherwise
indicated therein with reasonable certainty.

As shown by the evidence (Exhibit A-E), the NOW slips conform to the required
form of negotiable instrument as required by abovementioned provision.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that judgement be

rendered declaring Respondents guilty of the charged brought against him and likewise
file appropriate Criminal charges.

OTHER RELIEFS as may be deemed just and equitable under the premises are
likewise prayed for.

2
Lozano vs. Hon. Martinez 146 SCRA 323