Why Written Notice is Crucial in Bouncing Check Cases: Lessons from Domagsang v. Court of Appeals

n

In cases involving bounced checks, commonly known as violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) or the Anti-Bouncing Check Law, proper notification is not just a formality—it’s a critical element for conviction. The Supreme Court, in Josephine Domagsang v. Court of Appeals, clarified that verbal notice of dishonor is insufficient to secure a conviction under BP 22. This case underscores the necessity of written notice to provide due process and a chance for the check issuer to rectify the situation, highlighting a crucial protection for individuals facing charges under this law.

nn

[G.R. NO. 139292, December 05, 2000]

nn

INTRODUCTION

n

Imagine running a small business and relying on checks for transactions. Suddenly, you face accusations of violating the Anti-Bouncing Check Law because of dishonored checks. This scenario is a harsh reality for many, and it emphasizes the importance of understanding the nuances of BP 22. The Domagsang case serves as a stark reminder that while issuing a bad check can lead to legal repercussions, the prosecution must strictly adhere to procedural requirements, particularly the need for written notice of dishonor. This case isn’t just about a bounced check; it’s about due process and ensuring fair application of the law.

n

Josephine Domagsang was convicted in the lower courts for issuing eighteen bouncing checks. The prosecution argued that verbal notification of the dishonor was sufficient, and a written demand letter, though not formally offered as evidence, was also mentioned. The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a verbal notice of dishonor meets the legal requirement for conviction under BP 22.

nn

LEGAL CONTEXT: BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22 AND NOTICE OF DISHONOR

n

Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the Anti-Bouncing Check Law, aims to penalize the issuance of checks without sufficient funds, thereby preserving confidence in the banking system. The law’s core provision is found in Section 1:

n

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…shall be punished….

n

To establish a violation, the prosecution must prove three key elements: (1) issuance of a check for value; (2) knowledge at the time of issuance that funds are insufficient; and (3) subsequent dishonor of the check due to insufficient funds. Crucially, Section 2 of BP 22 provides a critical procedural safeguard:

n

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…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.

n

This section creates a presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds upon dishonor. However, this presumption is conditional. It hinges on the issuer failing to pay the check amount or make arrangements for payment within five banking days after receiving notice of dishonor. This “notice” is not merely a formality; it is a trigger for the five-day period to begin and a cornerstone of due process under BP 22. Prior Supreme Court jurisprudence, particularly *Lao v. Court of Appeals*, already emphasized that this presumption requires actual receipt of notice of dishonor to afford the accused an opportunity to avoid prosecution.

nn

CASE BREAKDOWN: DOMAGSANG’S JOURNEY THROUGH THE COURTS

n

Josephine Domagsang sought financial assistance from Ignacio Garcia, an Assistant Vice President at METROBANK. Garcia granted her a loan of P573,800.00, for which Domagsang issued 18 postdated checks. Upon presentment, all checks bounced due to “Account closed.” Garcia claimed to have made verbal demands for payment, and his lawyer purportedly sent a demand letter, though this letter was not formally presented in court.

n

Criminal charges for 18 counts of BP 22 violations were filed against Domagsang in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati. The procedural journey unfolded as follows:

n

n
1. RTC Conviction: The RTC convicted Domagsang based on the prosecution’s evidence, which included verbal notice of dishonor and the un-presented written demand.

n

2. Court of Appeals Affirmation: The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision. The CA reasoned that verbal notice was sufficient and that Domagsang’s failure to object to testimony about the written demand letter made it admissible, even without formal presentation.

n

3. Supreme Court Petition: Domagsang elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that verbal notice was insufficient and highlighting the lack of formal evidence of a written demand.

n

n

The Supreme Court meticulously reviewed the case and the provisions of BP 22. The Court emphasized the importance of the notice requirement in Section 2 and Section 3 of BP 22, noting Section 3 states that the reason for dishonor “shall always be explicitly stated in the notice of dishonor or refusal”. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals, stating:

n

While, indeed, Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 does not state that the notice of dishonor be in writing, taken in conjunction, however, with Section 3 of the law, i.e.,