27. Alferez v.

People;

GR No. 182301

31 January 2011

Nachura, J.:

FACTS:

Jaime Alferez was charged of three counts of violation of BP 22. Ten months after prosecution rested its
case, Alferez files a Demurrer to Evidence without leave of court citing that the prosecution failed to
show that he received the notice of dishonor or demand letter.

The MTC denied his demurrer and was convicted. The RTC and CA also affirmed the MTC's decision.

In his petition, he sustained his argument that no notice of dishonor was given to him. The CA maintains
that, aside from not testifying because of the consequence of his demurrer he did not object to the
prosecution’s evidence aimed at proving the fact of receipt of the notice of dishonor, the registry receipt
and the return card of the post office.

ISSUE:

Whether Aleferez was guilty.

RULING:

The SC acquitted Alferez but was ordered to pay civil liability. The SC did not believe that Alferez had
knowledge of his insufficient funds making him guilty of the offense. The registry receipt and the return
card did not prove that a notice of dishonor was given to Alferez. The absence of a notice of dishonor
necessarily deprives the accused an opportunity to preclude a criminal prosecution. As there is
insufficient proof that petitioner received the notice of dishonor, the presumption that he had
knowledge of insufficiency of funds cannot arise.

The CA was correct in saying that because of the demurrer, Alferez cannot testify anymore but still, the
burden is still on the prosecution to prove that a notice of dishonor was issued against Alferez.

The SC, instead, directed Alferez to pay civil liabilities as it only needs preponderance of evidence unlike
his charge of BP 22, which needs guilt beyond reasonable doubt.