San Mateo v.

People
March 6, 2013, G.R. No. 200090
Abad, J:

Facts: Erlinda San Mateo purchased assorted yarns from Rahvin Sewani. Erlinda then issued 11 post
dated checks for partial payment of the yarns. Erlinda San Mateo proceeded to call or write to Sehwani
asking him not to deposit the checks for the meantime due to insufficiency of funds in her bank account.
Sehwani agreed but San Mateo still failed to settle her payment. Sehwani then proceeded to deposit a
cheque which was later dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. Subsequently, Sehwani informed San
Mateo about the dishonored checks and San Mateo asked him once again to halt in depositing other
checks she is having financial difficulties.

Sometime in November 2005, Sehwani followed up with San Mateo but the latter never returned the call.
This prompted Sehwani to deposit another Metrobank check but San Mateo made a stop payment order.
San Mateo apologized thru a letter but since she still failed to settle her payment Sehwani proceeded to
deposit all the remaining checks which were all dishonored due to the closed account. Sehwani contacted
San Mateo which did not respond, Sehwani also sent demand letters to her last known address but San
Mateo still failed to pay. Sehwani's Counsel sent a demand letter in her residence but the security guard
refused to accept the letter due to San Mateo's Request. The counsel then left the demand letter to the
security guard and asked him to bring it to San Mateo. Sehwani also sent a copy of the letter through
registered mail but San Mateo still did not respond. San Mateo did not claim 3 notices of dishonored
checks.

Thus, 11 counts of BP 22 were filed against her. The MTC decided in favor of Sehwani and charged San
Mateo guilty of violating 10 counts of BP 22. San Mateo appealed to the RTC which just affirmed MTC's
decision. San Mateo then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals which also affirmed RTC's decision.
Hence, this petition before the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or Not San Mateo was guilty of violating BP 22.

Ruling: No, the following essential elements should be present for BP 22. 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 had not the drawer,
without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment. The first and third element was established
but the second element was not sufficiently established. There is no proof that San Mateo received the
demand letter when Sehwani's counsel left it to the security guard. In case of the registered mail it must
also be proven that there was an actual receipt of the notice. Thus, the Supreme Court cannot convict San
Mateo for violation of BP 22.