578 Phil. 228
PUNO, CJ.:
That, on or about the 18th day of September, 1998, in the City of Tagbilaran, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, knowing fully and well that he did not have sufficient funds deposited with the bank, did, then and there feloniously make out and issue Development Bank of the Philippines Check No. 0008784 in the amount of EIGHTY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT H/UNDRED TWELVE PESOS (P 82,812.00), Philippine Currency, drawn against Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) Tagbilaran City Branch, Tagbilaran City, and to pay Shoppers Mart, and thereafter, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously pass on, give and deliver the same to Shoppers Mart, in payment of a certain obligation; however, upon presentment of the check to the drawee bank for encashment or payment within a period of ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon, the same was dishonored and refused payment for the reason "ACCOUNT CLOSED" and the accused neither paid nor made arrangement with the drawee bank within five (5) banking days from receipt of notice of non-payment, to the damage and prejudice of said Shoppers Mart, in the amount to be proved during the trial of the case.Criminal Case Nos. 14988 and 14989 were consolidated and jointly tried. When arraigned, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charges against him.[12] During trial, the prosecution presented one witness, Dolores Huan Agbayani, the Collection Manager of Shoppers' Mart.[13] Petitioner filed a Demurrer to Evidence without leave of court, on the ground that no notice of dishonor had been sent to and received by him.[14] On January 26, 2004, the MTCC denied the Demurrer.[15]
Acts committed contrary to the provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.[11]
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Ricardo Suarez GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in each of the two (2) counts of Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 as charged in the two (2) informations and hereby imposes a penalty of FINE of:Petitioner appealed to the RTC, which ruled that the provision in B.P. Blg. 22 regarding criminal liability runs counter to the constitutional provision against imprisonment for nonpayment of a debt. The RTC modified the MTCC decision, viz:with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay costs in each case.
- EIGHTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P 85,000.00) in Crim. Case No. 14988;
- SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P 75,000.00) in Crim. Case No. 14989,
Accused is likewise ordered to pay complainant the total amount of P157,812.00 representing the total face value of the two (2) dishonored checks plus legal interest of six (6%) percent per annum from the filing of these cases on July 12, 2002 until finality of this judgment and twelve (12%) percent per annum from finality of this judgment until full payment and the sum of P5,000.00 as attorney's fees and litigation expenses.
SO ORDERED.[16]
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the assailed Decision is modified and another judgment is hereby entered absolving herein accused Ricardo Suarez from criminal liability under BP Blg. 22. However, the civil liability imposed upon him in the Decision is hereby affirmed.[17]On November 9, 2004, respondents assailed the RTC decision before the Court of Appeals.[18] The Court of Appeals set aside the RTC decision and reinstated the MTCC decision, holding that the RTC decision is void for absolving the petitioner of criminal liability despite a finding that he violated B.P. Blg. 22.[19]
B.P. Blg. 22 creates a presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds under the following circumstances:
- the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value;
- 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 such check in full upon its presentment; and
- 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.[24]
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 or credit with such bank, when presented within ninety 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.[25]The presumption arises when it is proved that the issuer had received this notice, and that within five banking days from its receipt, he failed to pay the amount of the check or to make arrangements for its payment.[26] The full payment of the amount appearing in the check within five banking days from notice of dishonor is a complete defense.[27] Accordingly, procedural due process requires that a notice of dishonor be sent to and received by the petitioner to afford the opportunity to avert prosecution under B.P. Blg. 22.[28]
...it must appear that the same was served on the addressee or a duly authorized agent of the addressee. In fact, the registry return receipt itself provides that `[a] registered article must not be delivered to anyone but the addressee, or upon the addressee's written order, in which case the authorized agent must write the addressee's name on the proper space and then affix legibly his own signature below it.'[31]The failure of the prosecution to properly authenticate and identify the signature on the registry return card as that of the petitioner is evident from the testimony of its sole witness, the Collection Manager of Shoppers' Mart:
The presentation of the registry card, with an unauthenticated signature, does not meet the required proof beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner received such notice, especially considering that he denied receiving it.[33] As there is insufficient proof that the petitioner received notice of dishonor, the presumption that he had knowledge of insufficiency of funds cannot arise.
Q:The return card evidencing actual receipt by the defendant, it is also included in Branch 2, City Court? A:Yes, sir. Q:I show you a return receipt, is this the return receipt you are referring to? A:Yes, sir.[32]