Scribd
Upload
165 views2 pages

No Notice of Dishonor BP 22

The document summarizes a Philippine Supreme Court case regarding insufficient evidence that the defendant received a notice of dishonor for a bounced check. Specifically: 1) The prosecution attempted to prove receipt through a demand letter, registry receipt, and return card, but did not authenticate the signature on the return card. 2) Registry return cards must be authenticated to serve as proof of receipt, which did not occur in this case. 3) There was insufficient proof that the defendant received the required notice of dishonor, so the presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds did not arise.

Uploaded by

Anonymous 4IOzjRIB1
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
165 views2 pages

No Notice of Dishonor BP 22

The document summarizes a Philippine Supreme Court case regarding insufficient evidence that the defendant received a notice of dishonor for a bounced check. Specifically: 1) The prosecution attempted to prove receipt through a demand letter, registry receipt, and return card, but did not authenticate the signature on the return card. 2) Registry return cards must be authenticated to serve as proof of receipt, which did not occur in this case. 3) There was insufficient proof that the defendant received the required notice of dishonor, so the presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds did not arise.

Uploaded by

Anonymous 4IOzjRIB1
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

August 3, 2016

G.R. No. 163494

JESUSA T. DELA CRUZ, Petitioner


vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

NO PROOF OF ACTUAL RECEIPT OF DEMAND LETTER/NOTICE OF DISHONOR

REGISTRY RETURN CARD NOT AUTHENTICATED

The prosecution also attempted to prove the petitioner's receipt of a notice of dishonor by referring to
a demand letter  dated August 8, 1987, along with a registry receipt  showing that the letter was
50 51

sent by registered mail, and the registry return card  showing its receipt by a certain Rolando
52

Villanueva on August 25, 1987. Given the circumstances and the manner by which the documents
were presented during the trial, the presumption that could lead to evidence of knowledge of
insufficient funds failed to arise. The Court emphasized in Alferez v. People, et al.   the manner by
53

which receipt of a notice of dishonor should be established, to wit:

In Suarez v. People, x x x [w]e explained that:

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. The full payment of the amount appearing in the check within five banking days from
notice of dishonor is a complete defense. Accordingly, procedural due process requires that a notice
of dishonor be sent to and received by the petitioner to afford the opportunity to aver prosecution
under B.P. Blg. 22.

x x x. [I]t is not enough for the prosecution to prove that a notice of dishonor was sent to the
petitioner. It is also incumbent upon the prosecution to show "that the drawer of the check received
the said notice because the fact of service provided for in the law is reckoned from receipt of such
notice of dishonor by the drawee of the check.["]

A review of the records shows that the prosecution did not prove that the petitioner received the
notice of dishonor. Registry return cards must be authenticated to serve as proof of receipt of letters
sent through registered mail.

In this case, the prosecution merely presented a copy of the demand letter, together with the registry
receipt and the return card, allegedly sent to petitioner. However, there was no attempt to
authenticate or identify the signature on the registry return card. Receipts for registered letters
and return receipts do not by themselves prove receipt; they must be properly authenticated to serve
as proof of receipt of the letter, claimed to be a notice of dishonor. To be sure, the presentation of
the registry card with an unauthenticated signature, does not meet the required proof beyond
reasonable doubt that petitioner reveived such notice. It is not enough for the prosecution to
prove that a notice of dishonor was sent to the drawee of the check. The prosecution must also
prove actual receipt of said notice, because the fact of service provided for in the law is reckoned
from receipt of such notice of dishonor by the drawee of the check. The burden of proving notice
rests upon the party asserting its existence. Ordinarily, preponderance of evidence is sufficient to
prove notice. In criminal cases, however, the quantum of proof required is proof beyond reasonable
doubt. Hence, for B.P. Blg. 22 cases, there should be clear proof of notice. Moreover, for notice by
mail, it must appear that the same was served on the addressee or a duly authorized agent of the
addressee. From the registry receipt alone, it is possible that petitioner or his authorized
agent did receive the demand letter. Possibilities, however, cannot replace proof beyond
reasonable doubt. The consistent rule is that penal statutes have to be construed strictly against
the State and liberally in favor of the accused. 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.  (Citations omitted and emphasis ours)
54

Similarly, in the instant case, the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove the actual receipt by the
petitioner of the demand letter sent by Tan. No witness testified to authenticate the registry return
card and the signature appearing thereon. The return card provides that the letter was received by
one Rolando Villanueva, without even further proof that the said person was the petitioner's duly
authorized agent for the purpose of receiving the correspondence. 

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy