Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 2

Rico vs.

People

G.R. No. 137191, November 18, 2002

Quisumbing, J.

FACTS:

Ben Rico, a contractor who purchases construction materials from Ever Lucky Commercial, issued five
post-dated checks during business transactions. Unfortunately, these checks bounced due to insufficient
funds and a closed account. Ever Lucky promptly requested payment from Rico, but no formal letter of
demand was sent to him. Eventually, Ever Lucky filed a case against Rico for violating Batas Pambansa 22.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Ben Rico is guilty of violating Batas Pambansa 22

RULING:

No. Ben Rico did not violate BP 22.

The law specifies the elements of violating B.P. 22, which include: (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.

In the present case, the prosecution only proved elements 1 and 2. However, it failed to prove that Rico
had knowledge of the insufficiency of funds in the drawee bank when the checks were presented for
payment. According to the law, there shall be a prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficiency on
the part of the accused by making, drawing, and issuance of a check payment, which is refused by the
drawee because of insufficient funds or credit with such bank, when presented within ninety (90) days
from the date of the check. However, this prima facie presumption shall not arise if within 5 days of
receiving the notice of dishonor, the accused shall have paid or made arrangement to pay in full.
In the case at bar, no notice of dishonor was sent to Rico, hence the presumption did not arise.
Therefore, it was the prosecution's duty to prove Rico's knowledge of insufficiency, which it failed to do.

You might also like