TOLENTINO, PRECIOUS MAE F.

BSA 2104 – BDC

G.R. No. 1673461 Vicky Moster as Petitioner vs People of the Philippines as

Respondents

FACTS:

- The petition criticize the decision of Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 27595 dated
October 29, 2004 which affirms the decision made by the Regional Trial Court of
Caloocan City Branch 124. Court of Appeals found Moster guilty on two counts for
violating the Batasang Pambansa Blg.22 otherwise known as The Bouncing Checks Law
which sentenced her with an additional of fines with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, 273,345 representing the two unpaid checks that is subject of this case.
- Petitioner obtained a loan of P450, 000 from Presas, for which the petitioner issued
three postdated PhilBank checks as payment. All three checks were made out to cash.
Presas testified that, despite petitioner's request and assurance that the checks would
be replaced with cash, she did not deposit them on their due dates. Presas, unable to
wait any longer, deposited Check Nos. 026138 and 026124 into her Westmont Bank
account, only to be informed later that the checks were dishonored because the account
had been closed. Presas stated that she did not deposit Check No. 026137 after
agreeing to withhold its deposit because it had not yet been funded. Presas immediately
informed petitioner that Check Nos. 026138 and 026124 had been dishonored and
demanded payment for the amount of the checks. This request, however, was ignored.
- In a letter, Presas, through counsel, demanded that petitioner pay P367, 602, the total
value of the three checks, within five days of receipt. Petitioner, on the other hand, did
not comply. As a result, three Information’s for violations of B.P. Blg. There were 22
complaints filed against the petitioner. .

ISSUE:

- Whether the decision of the Court of Appeals is right and if the petitioner is truly guilty of
the matter.

RULLING:

- As the Supreme Court review the said case. They conclude that lack of proof were
present because clause under B.P. Blg 22 Section 1 is not met and it is consist of
components of (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply on account
or for value; (2) the maker's, drawer's, or issuer's knowledge that at the time of issue he
does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the
check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the drawee bank's subsequent dishonor of the
check for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the
drawer.
- The Court of Appeals' Decision dated October 29, 2004 and Resolution dated March 16,
2005 in CA-G.R. CR No. 27595 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and Petitioner Vicky
Moster is acquitted of the charge of violating B.P. Blg. 22 based on a reasonable doubt.
She is, however, DIRECTED to pay private complainant the total amount of P367,602
corresponding to the three unpaid PhilBank checks, plus 12% interest from the filing of
TOLENTINO, PRECIOUS MAE F.
BSA 2104 – BDC

the information until the finality of this decision, the sum of which, inclusive of interest,
shall be subject to 12% interest until the amount due is fully paid.

Chua vs. People, G.R. No.195248, November 22, 2017

FACTS:

- Around the year 2000, petitioner's mother mentioned that her son would be reviving their
sugar mill business and asked if Yao could lend them money. Yao consented and
loaned petitioner 1 million on 3 January 2001, 1 million on 7 January 2001, and l.5
million on 16 February 2001. She also loaned petitioner an additional $2.5 million in
June 2001. As payment, petitioner issued four (4) checks in these amounts, but they
were dishonored because they were drawn on a closed account. Yao personally
delivered her demand letter to the petitioner's office, which was received by his secretary
after the checks were dishonored. Petitioner was thus charged with four (4) counts of
violating B.P. Blg. 22.
The petitioner contended that the prosecution failed to establish actual receipt of the
notice which result in this petition on Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

- Whether or not the petitioner is in violation of B.P.22

RULLING

- No. To be held accountable for violating B.P. Big. 22 requires the presence of the
following essential elements: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to
apply for account or for value; (2) the maker, drawer, or issuer's knowledge that at the
time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the
payment of the check in full upon its presentation; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of
the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the
same reason

- The Court concludes that the second element was not sufficiently established. Yao
testified that petitioner's personal secretary received the demand letter; however, said
personal secretary was never called to testify whether she in fact handed the demand
letter to petitioner, who has always denied receiving such a letter. It should be noted that
the prosecution only needs to show that a notice of dishonor was sent to the accused.
The prosecution must also prove actual receipt of said notice, because the fact of
service required by law is calculated from the accused's receipt of such notice of
dishonor.
TOLENTINO, PRECIOUS MAE F.
BSA 2104 – BDC

Josef vs. People, G.R. No. 146424, November 18, 2005

FACTS:

- This petition is made to review the CA’s decision on CA-G.R CR no. 23234 which
affirmed Albino Josef’s conviction for 26 counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
- Petitioner, a Marikina-based shoe manufacturer and seller, purchased materials from
respondent Agustin Alarilla, a Meycauayan, Bulacan-based seller of leather products, for
which the former issued a total of 26 postdated checks against his accounts with the
Associated Bank and Far East Bank & Trust Company from June to August 1991. When
private respondent presented these checks for encashment, they were refused because
the accounts on which they were drawn had been closed. The private respondent
informed the petitioner of the dishonor and demanded payment for their monetary value.
Following some wrangling, the petitioner drew and delivered a new set of postdated
checks to replace the dishonored ones. In turn, private respondent returned to petitioner
the originals of the dishonored postdated checks but kept photocopies. When private
respondent deposited the replacement checks in his Westmont Bank account, the
drawee bank also dishonored them. As a result, the private respondent filed criminal
complaints against petitioner with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan for
violation of BP 22. Following an initial investigation, the Provincial Prosecutor filed 26
Information’s against the petitioner with the RTC of Bulacan for violation of BP 22. The
petitioner admits to issuing the 26 dishonored checks.

ISSUES:

- Whether the decision of the Court of Appeals is right and if the petitioner is truly guilty of
the matter.

RULLING

- The Supreme Court affirmed the said decision of Court of Appeals resulting to dismiss
the petition filed by Josef. Based on the components of B.P Blg. 22 which are the
following details; (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for
account or for value; (2) the maker, drawer, or issuer's knowledge that at the time of
issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment
of the check in full upon its presentation; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check
by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason.
All of them were present in the violation made by Petitioner which will be the basis of the
judgement of the Supreme Court. By admitting that he had the originals and even
displaying them in open court, petitioner cured any flaws in the prosecution's evidence.
The fact that these originals were all stamped "account closed" simply confirmed the
respondent's claims that the checks were dishonored because the account had been
TOLENTINO, PRECIOUS MAE F.
BSA 2104 – BDC

closed. The prosecution correctly adopted these originals as its own evidence because
they were entirely consistent with its main theory. Furthermore, the petitioner admitted
that five of the original checks were lost, making the photocopies admissible as
exceptions to the Best Evidence Rule. Therefore, the petitioner is truly guilty in violating
the B.P. blg, 22.

San Mateo vs. People, G.R. No. 200090, March 6, 2013

FACTS:

- This petition is made to review the CA’s decision on CA-G.R. CR 33434 finding
petitioner Erlinda C. San Mateo guilty of 10 counts of violation of B.P. 22.
- Petitioner Erlinda C. San Mateo ordered assorted yarns worth P327, 394.14 from ITSP
International, Incorporated via its Vice-President for Operations Ravin Sehwani between
May and July 2005. In that order San Mateo paid with 11 postdated checks that can be
used by ITSP. When a check matured, San Mateo would call or write to Sehwani,
requesting that he refrain from depositing the checks due to lack of sufficient funds.
Sehwani agreed to the request because of their business relationship. However, San
Mateo failed to settle her account.
- The two agreed that San Mateo would notify Sehwani when the checks would be
deposited. San Mateo was unable to settle her account despite this, and Sehwani sent
demand letters to her office and then to her residence. At San Mateo's request, the
security guard turned away the first letter addressed to her residence, and the liaison
officer left the letter with the security guard. Following that, a copy of the demand letter
was sent to San Mateo via registered mail, which was returned to his counsel's office
with the notation "N/S Party Out 12/12/05," and San Mateo did not claim it despite three
notices to her, dated December 12, 2005, December 22, 2005, and January 2, 2006.
Because of this, the MeTC of Taguig found her guilty of violating BP 22.

ISSUES:

- Whether the decision of the Court of Appeals is right and if the petitioner is truly guilty of
the matter.

RULLING:

- No. The Supreme Court ruled that in order to be held liable for a violation of B.P. 22
requires the following essential elements to 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 or 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. Upon, reviewing all the information given in the
case, second element of BP 22 is not fully establish because the basis of concluding
San Mateo knew the insufficient funds on her bank account is not supported by the
evidence given by the prosecutor.
TOLENTINO, PRECIOUS MAE F.
BSA 2104 – BDC

- The Court grants the petition and reversed the said decision of Court of Appeals on CA
G-R CR 33434 dated August 23, 2011 which find the petitioner guilty of 10 counts of
violation on B.P 22 Petitioner Erlinda C. San Mateo is hereby acquitted on the grounds
that her guilt has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. She is, however, ordered
to indemnify the complainant, in the amount of P 134,275.00, representing the total
value of the 11 checks, plus 12% interest per annum from the time the said sum became
due and demandable until fully paid.

Arceo, Jr. vs. People, G.R. No. 142641

FACTS:

- This petition is made to review the CA’s decision on CA-G.R. CR No. 19601 finding
petitioner finding petitioner Pacifico B. Arceo, Jr. liable for violation of Batas Pambansa
Blg. (BP) 22, otherwise known as the "Bouncing Checks Law."
- Josefino Cenizal provided Pacifico Arceo with a loan. He then wrote a check in Cenizal's
name and verbally promised seven times that he would replace it with cash. He
encashed the check after failing to replace it, but it was dishonored due to insufficient
funds.
- Cenizal's lawyer issued demand letters for the full amount of the check. A case for
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. was filed by signing an affidavit and presenting the
check and return slips to a prosecutor. (B.P.) 22 was filed on March 27, 1992, against
Arceo. Cenizal later lost the dishonored check and the return slip in a fire that occurred
near his home on September 16, 1992. Cenizal signed an Affidavit of Loss for the loss of
the check and the return slip.

ISSUES:

- Whether or not the check has been presented in evidence that is under the condition of
conviction of BP 22.

RULLING:

- The petitioner's insistence on presenting the check in evidence as a essential condition

for conviction under BP 22 is incorrect. The best evidence rule, Rule 130, Section 3 of
the Rules of Court, applies only when the content of the document is the subject of the
inquiry. The best evidence rule does not apply when the issue is the execution or
existence of the document or the circumstances surrounding its execution, and
testimonial evidence is admissible.
- The act of drawing and issuing a worthless check is at issue. As a result, the subject of
the investigation is the fact of the check's issuance or execution rather than its content.
Despite the fact that the check and the return slip were among the documents lost,
Cenizal was able to adequately establish the due execution, existence, and loss of the
check and the return slip in an affidavit of loss as well as in his testimony during the
case's trial. Arceo even admitted to writing the check. He never denied that the check
was presented to the drawee bank for payment and was dishonored because it was
drawn against insufficient funds.
TOLENTINO, PRECIOUS MAE F.
BSA 2104 – BDC

- The SC denied Arceo's petition affiriming the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Resterio vs. People, G.R. No. September 24, 2012

FACTS:

- This petition is regarding on the charged that is given to petitioner about the
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC)
in Mandaue City
- That on or about May 2, 2002, in the City of Mandaue, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the petitioner accused willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously made, drew, and issued China Bank Check bearing No. AO141332, dated
June 3, 2002, for P 50,000.00 payable to the order of Bernardo T. Villadolid to be
applied on account or for value, the accused fully knowing that at the time of issuance of
said check, she does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the
payment of such check in full upon its presentation; or the accused having sufficient
funds in or credit with the drawee bank when she makes or draws and issues a check
but failing to keep sufficient funds or maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the
check, which check was dishonored by the drawee bank when presented for
encashment for the reason "ACCT. CLOSED" or would have been dishonored for the
same reason if the drawer had not ordered the bank to stop payment without any valid
reason, and despite notice of dishonor and demands for payment, said accused failed
and refused, and still fails and refuses, to redeem the check or to make arrangement for
payment in full by the drawee of such check within five (5) banking days after receiving
the notice of dishonor, to the detriment and prejudice of the a forenamed private
complainant

ISSUES:

- Whether or not the petitioner can be held criminally liable for violating BP 22.

RULLING:

- No. As a result of a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. The prosecution must prove
the following essential elements: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to
apply for account or for value; (2) the maker's, drawer's, or issuer's knowledge that there
were insufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank at the time of issue for the
payment of such check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the dishonor of the check by
the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or the dishonor for the same reason.
TOLENTINO, PRECIOUS MAE F.
BSA 2104 – BDC

- As the court review the said case, one of the element in violating the BP 22 is not properly
establish that’s why the court overturns and set aside the decision of the court of appeals
issued on December 4, 2006, and acquits petitioner Amada Resterio of Batas Pambansa blg.
22 for failing to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court orders the petitioner
to pay p 50,000.00 to Bernardo Villadolid as the face value of china bank check no. lpu-
a0141332, with a legal interest rate of 6% per year from the date of filing until the finality of
this decision, and then 12% per year until the principal amount of p 50,000.00 is paid.