In cases involving violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), also known as the Bouncing Checks Law, the Supreme Court has emphasized the critical importance of providing written notice of dishonor to the issuer of the check. The court ruled that the prosecution must present clear proof that the issuer received this notice; without it, the legal presumption of the issuer’s knowledge of insufficient funds cannot be established, potentially leading to acquittal, even if civil liability persists.

Dishonored Check, Disputed Notice: Can Amada Escape Liability?

Amada Resterio was accused of violating BP 22 for issuing a check that was later dishonored due to her account being closed. The prosecution aimed to prove that Amada knew her account lacked sufficient funds when she issued the check. A critical element for conviction under BP 22 is that the issuer had been duly notified in writing that the check was dishonored, and despite this notification, failed to make arrangements for payment within five banking days. The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven that Amada received the required written notice of dishonor.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Resterio v. People hinged on the principle that for a conviction under BP 22, all essential elements of the crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. These elements include the making and issuance of a check, the issuer’s knowledge of insufficient funds at the time of issuance, and the subsequent dishonor of the check by the bank. The court underscored the necessity of the written notice of dishonor as crucial evidence for establishing the second element: the issuer’s knowledge of insufficient funds. The rationale behind requiring a written notice stems from the due process rights of the accused. As the Court explained in Dico v. Court of Appeals:

To hold a person liable under B.P. Blg. 22, the prosecution must not only establish that a check was issued and that the same was subsequently dishonored, it must further be shown that accused knew at the time of the issuance of the check that he did not have sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment.

The written notice requirement offers the check issuer an opportunity to avoid criminal prosecution by settling the amount due within five banking days. Without this notice, the issuer is deprived of a fair chance to rectify the situation, thereby violating their right to due process. The Court, in Lao v. Court of Appeals, emphasized the importance of this opportunity:

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’ xxx 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.’

In Amada’s case, the prosecution presented registry return receipts as proof that written notices of dishonor were sent. However, the Supreme Court found this insufficient. The Court stated that registry return receipts alone are inadequate proof of service unless accompanied by an authenticating affidavit from the person who mailed the notice or their testimony in court. This affidavit or testimony must verify that the notice was indeed sent. The Court, citing Ting v. Court of Appeals, highlighted the necessity of clear proof of notice:

In the instant case, the prosecution did not present proof that the demand letter was sent through registered mail, relying as it did only on the registry return receipt… If, in addition to the registry receipt, it is required in civil cases that an affidavit of mailing as proof of service be presented, then with more reason should we hold in criminal cases that a registry receipt alone is insufficient as proof of mailing.

Furthermore, the Court noted that verbal notices of dishonor are insufficient. The notice must be in writing to comply with the requirements of BP 22. In Domagsang v. Court of Appeals, the Court clarified that:

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., “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,” a mere oral notice or demand to pay would appear to be insufficient for conviction under the law.

Due to the lack of sufficient proof that Amada received a written notice of dishonor, the Supreme Court acquitted her of violating BP 22. Although the prosecution failed to prove Amada’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for the criminal charge, the court upheld her civil liability for the face value of the check, along with legal interest. This ruling underscores the stringent evidentiary requirements for establishing criminal liability under the Bouncing Checks Law. It highlights the importance of providing clear and convincing proof that the issuer of the check received written notice of its dishonor.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Resterio v. People is a reminder of the importance of due process in criminal prosecutions under BP 22. It reinforces the need for prosecutors to present concrete evidence of written notice to the issuer of a dishonored check, safeguarding the rights of the accused and ensuring fair application of the law. This ruling serves as a crucial precedent for future cases involving bouncing checks, ensuring that the burden of proof is met and the rights of the accused are protected. This careful approach to evidence ensures that convictions are based on solid grounds.

FAQs

What is the Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22)?	BP 22 penalizes the act of issuing checks without sufficient funds or credit in the bank, aiming to prevent the circulation of worthless checks. It aims to promote stability in financial transactions.
What are the key elements of a BP 22 violation?	The elements are: (1) issuing a check, (2) knowing there are insufficient funds at the time of issuance, and (3) the check being dishonored by the bank. All three must be proven to secure a conviction.
Why is a written notice of dishonor important?	A written notice of dishonor is crucial because it establishes the issuer’s knowledge of insufficient funds, a key element of the crime. It also gives the issuer a chance to avoid prosecution.
What proof is required to show a notice of dishonor was sent?	The prosecution must present the registry receipt, the authenticating affidavit of the person mailing the notice, or the mailer’s testimony in court to prove the notice was sent. The registry receipt alone is not enough.
Is a verbal notice of dishonor sufficient under BP 22?	No, a verbal notice is not sufficient. The law requires that the notice of dishonor be in writing.
What happens if the prosecution fails to prove notice?	If the prosecution fails to prove the issuer received a written notice of dishonor, the presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds cannot arise, potentially leading to acquittal. The criminal case may be dismissed.
What is the effect of an acquittal on civil liability?	Even if acquitted of the criminal charge, the issuer may still be held civilly liable for the face value of the check. This means they still owe the money.
What was the outcome in the Resterio case?	Amada Resterio was acquitted of violating BP 22 because the prosecution failed to prove she received a written notice of dishonor, but was ordered to pay the check amount plus interest. Her debt remained despite her acquittal.

The Resterio v. People case clarifies the stringent requirements for proving a violation of the Bouncing Checks Law, particularly the necessity of demonstrating that the issuer of the check received written notice of its dishonor. This ruling underscores the importance of meticulous evidence gathering and presentation by the prosecution to ensure the protection of the rights of the accused while upholding the integrity of financial transactions.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: AMADA RESTERIO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT., G.R. No. 177438, September 24, 2012