400 Phil. 846
VITUG, J.:
"That on or about the 24th day of June, 1991, in the Municipality of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously make out, draw and issue to complainant Ignacio H. Garcia, Jr., to apply on account or for value the dated check/described below:
"Check No. : 149900
Drawn Against : Traders Royal Bank
In the Amount of : P50,000.00
Dated/Postdated : June 24, 1991
Payable to : Ignacio H. Garcia, Jr.
"said accused well knowing that at the time of issue thereof, she did not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment in full of the face amount of such check upon its presentment, which check when presented for payment within ninety (90) days from the date thereof was subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason `ACCOUNT CLOSED' and despite receipt of notice of such dishonor, the accused failed to pay said payee the face amount of said check or to make arrangement for full payment thereof within five (5) banking days after receiving notice.
"CONTRARY TO LAW."[2]
were also filed against petitioner. The cases were later consolidated and jointly tried following the "not guilty" plea of petitioner when arraigned on 02 November 1992.
"Check Number Dated/Postdated AmountTRB -
No. 161181 July 18, 1991
July 24, 1991
July 30, 1991
August 30, 1991
September 15, 1991
September 18, 1991
September 18, 1991
September 30, 1991
October 15, 1991
October 30, 1991
November 15, 1991
November 30, 1991
December 15, 1991
December 15, 1991
December 30, 1991
December 30, 1991
December 30, 1991P6,000.00
3,000.00
29,700.00
9,300.00
6,000.00
6,000.00
100,000.00
9,000.00
6,000.00
10,500.00
6,000.00
11,400.00
6,000.00
100,000.00
12,000.00
100,000.00
100,000.00"[3]TRB - No. 149906 No. 182074
No. 182084
No. 182078
No. 161183
No. 161177
No. 182085
No. 182079
No. 182086
No. 182080
No. 182087
No. 182081
No. 182082
No. 182088
No. 182089
No. 182090
"1. Whether or not an alleged verbal demand to pay sufficient to convict herein petitioner for the crime of violation of B.P. Blg. 22;
"2. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals committed reversible error when it affirmed the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court, on the ground that a written notice of dishonor is not necessary in a prosecution for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, contrary to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Lao vs. Court of Appeals, 274 SCRA 572; (and)
"3. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in considering the alleged written demand letter, despite failure of the prosecution to formally offer the same."[4]
"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 days but not more than one (1) year or by 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.
"SEC. 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.
"SEC. 3. Duty of drawee; rules of evidence. - It shall be the duty of the drawee of any check, when refusing to pay the same to the holder thereof upon presentment, to cause to be written, printed or stamped in plain language thereon, or attached thereto, the reason for drawee's dishonor or refusal to pay the same: Provided, That where there are no sufficient funds in or credit with such drawee bank, such fact shall always be explicitly stated in the notice of dishonor or refusal. In all prosecutions under this Act, the introduction in evidence of any unpaid and dishonored check, having the drawee's refusal to pay stamped or written thereon, or attached thereto, with the reason therefor as aforesaid, shall be prima facie evidence of the making or issuance of said check, and the due presentment to the drawee for payment and the dishonor thereof, and that the same was properly dishonored for the reason written, stamped or attached by the drawee on such dishonored check.
"Notwithstanding receipt of an order to stop payment, the drawee shall state in the notice that there were no sufficient funds in or credit with such bank for the payment in full of such check, if such be the fact."[5] (Underscoring supplied.)
"x x x. Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 clearly provides that this presumption arises not from the mere fact of drawing, making and issuing a bum check; there must also be a showing that, within five banking days from receipt of the notice of dishonor, such maker or drawer failed to pay the holder of the check the amount due thereon or to make arrangement for its payment in full by the drawee of such check.
"It has been observed that the State, under this statute, actually offers the violator `a compromise by allowing him to perform some act which operates to preempt the criminal action, and if he opts to perform it the action is abated.' This was also compared `to certain laws allowing illegal possessors of firearms a certain period of time to surrender the illegally possessed firearms to the Government, without incurring any criminal liability.' In this light, the full payment of the amount appearing in the check within five banking days from notice of dishonor is a `complete defense.' The absence of a notice of dishonor necessarily deprives an accused an opportunity to preclude a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, procedural due process clearly enjoins that a notice of dishonor be actually served on petitioner. Petitioner has a right to demand - and the basic postulates of fairness require - that the notice of dishonor be actually sent to and received by her to afford her the opportunity to avert prosecution under B.P. Blg. 22."[9]
"The maker's knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds is legally presumed from the dishonor of his check (People vs. Laggui, 171 Phil. 305). The law does not require a written notice of the dishonor of such check.
"In the instant case, appellant had knowledge that her checks were dishonored by the bank when complainant Garcia made several oral demands upon her to pay the value of the checks in the amount of P573,800.00. Despite said demands, appellant failed and refused to pay the same. Moreover, complaining witness further testified that his lawyer made a written demand upon appellant but the latter ignored said demand (tsn., May 27, 1993, pp. 13-14). In this connection, appellant waived her right to present evidence or rebut complainant's testimony that he made oral demands upon appellant to make good the dishonored checks and his lawyer wrote her a demand letter.
"Likewise, appellant did not object to the admission of the complainant's testimony with regard to the written demand by moving that it be stricken off the record for being hearsay, hence, the same is admissible evidence. In the case of People vs. Garcia, 89 SCRA 440, the Supreme court ruled:"`x x x (It) must be noted that neither the defendant nor his counsel below objected to the admission of the testimonies which are now being assailed as hearsay. This is fatal to defendant-appellant's present posture since the failure to object to hearsay evidence constitutes a waiver of the x x right to cross-examine the actual witness to the occurrence, rendering the evidence admissible.'"[10]
or the sum of P563,800, has yet to be made good by petitioner. This amount, with 12% legal interest per annum from the filing of the information until the finality of this decision, must be forthwith settled.
Check Number Dated/Postdated AmountTRB -
No. 149900 June 24, 1991
July 18, 1991
July 24, 1991
July 30, 1991
August 30, 1991
September 15, 1991
September 18, 1991
September 18, 1991
September 30, 1991
October 15, 1991
October 30, 1991
November 15, 1991
November 30, 1991
December 15, 1991
December 15, 1991
December 30, 1991
December 30, 1991
December 30, 1991P50,000.00
6,000.00
3,000.00
29,700.00
1,300.00
6,000.00
6,000.00
100,000.00
9,900.00
6,000.00
10,500.00
6,000.00
11,400.00
6,000.00
100,000.00
12,000.00
100,000.00
100,000.00"[17]TRB - No. 161181 TRB - No. 149906 No. 182074
No. 182084
No. 182078
No. 161183
No. 161171
No. 182085
No. 182079
No. 182086
No. 182080
No. 182087
No. 182081
No. 182082
No. 182088
No. 182089
No. 182090