Caras vs CA G.R. No. 129900.

October 2, 2001

Facts: Petitioner Caras was tried and found guilty by the lower court of 15 counts of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) iolations. Petitioner asserts that she was not !ro!erly notified of the dishonor of her checks. "he maintains that the !rosecution failed to show that she recei ed the notices of dishonor !ur!ortedly sent to her. "he !oints out that no return card nor acknowledgment recei!t for the first demand letter was !resented in e idence. #hile there was a return card attached to the second demand letter$ this was not marked nor offered in e idence$ and hence must be ignored. Petitioner also assails the %urisdiction of the &ue'on City ()C o er the case$ maintaining that there is no e idence showing that the checks were issued and deli ered in &ue'on City. *either is there e idence as to where the !ri ate com!lainant recei ed the checks$ and whether or not she recei ed them from the accused herself. Issue: #hether or not the bank+s failure to send !etitioner the notice of dishonor grants the latter a re ersal of decision Held: ,es. Petitioner is ac-uitted of the criminal charges$ without !re%udice to ci il actions that may be filed against her. )he elements of the offense under "ection 1 of B.P. Blg. 22 are. (1) drawing and issuance of any check to a!!ly on account or for alue/ (2) knowledge by the maker$ drawer$ or issuer that at the time of issue he did not ha e sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the !ayment of such check in full u!on !resentment/ and (0) said check is subse-uently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit$ or would ha e been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer$ without any alid reason$ ordered the bank to sto! !ayment . )he absence of !roof that !etitioner recei ed any notice informing her of the fact that her checks were dishonored and gi ing her fi e banking days within which to make arrangements for !ayment of the said checks !re ents the a!!lication of the dis!utable !resum!tion that she had knowledge of the insufficiency of her funds at the time she issued the checks. 1bsent such !resum!tion$ the burden shifts to the !rosecution to !ro e that !etitioner had knowledge of the insufficiency of her funds when she issued the said checks$ otherwise$ she cannot be held liable under the law. 2 en more crucial$ the absence of any notice of dishonor !ersonally sent to and recei ed by the accused is a iolation of the !etitioner+s right to due !rocess. )his is in effect the court+s ruling in Lao vs. Court of Appeals $ where it was held.

3t has been obser ed that the "tate$ under this statute$ actually offers the iolator 4a com!romise by allowing him to !erform some act which o!erates to !reem!t the criminal action$ and if he o!ts to !erform it the action is abated5. )his was also com!ared 4to certain laws5(citing 2.6. 178$ 90 6.:. *o. 8$ !. 58; (<ebruary 1;$ 1=98)$ and 2.6. 122$ 9= 6.:. *o. >>$ !. ;0>= (*o ember 1$ 1==0) allowing illegal !ossessors of firearms a certain !eriod of time to surrender the illegally !ossessed firearms to the :o ernment$ without incurring any criminal liability5 (citing *itafan$ ?a id :.$ *otes and Comments on the Bouncing Checks Law (BP Blg. 22)$ !!. 121@122). 3n this light$ the full !ayment of the amount a!!earing in the check within fi e banking days from notice of dishonor is a 4com!lete defense5 (citing *a arro s. Court of 1!!eals$ 20> "C(1 ;0=). The abse ce o! a ot"ce o! d"sho or ecessar"l# de$r"ves a accused a o$$ortu "t# to $reclude a cr"%" al $rosecut"o . Accord" &l#, $rocedural due $rocess clearl# e 'o" s that a ot"ce o! d"sho or be actuall# served o $et"t"o er. (et"t"o er has a r"&ht to de%a d ) a d the bas"c $ostulates o! !a"r ess re*u"re ) that the ot"ce o! d"sho or be actuall# se t to a d rece"ved b# her to a!!ord her the o$$ortu "t# to avert $rosecut"o u der +.(. +l&. 22. 1bsent a clear showing that !etitioner actually knew of the dishonor of her checks and was gi en the o!!ortunity to make arrangements for !ayment as !ro ided for under the law$ the court cannot with moral certainty con ict her of iolation of B.P. Blg. 22. )he failure of the !rosecution to !ro e that !etitioner was gi en the re-uisite notice of dishonor is a clear ground for her ac-uittal. ?iscussion of the other assigned errors need no longer be discussed.

3n Criminal Case *os. &@=0@>>>21 to &@=0@>>>0>$ the informations were similarly worded as abo e$ eGce!t for the res!ecti e amounts in ol ed$ dates$ numbers of checks and dates of commission. #hen arraigned on 1ugust 1;$ 1==0$ accused Caras !leaded 4not guilty5. )hereafter$ trial !roceeded. )he e idence for the !rosecution tends to show that on or about <ebruary 19$ 1==2$ u! to Eay 01$ 1==2 at &ue'on City$ accused Dane Caras obtained from com!lainant Chu ,ang ). 1tien'a on installment arious gift checks and !urchase orders from Hniwide "ales and in !ayment thereof$ the accused issued to the com!lainant the following checks drawn against Phili!!ine Commercial Bank. Check *o. 7188>> P 1>$125.77 7188>0 P 1>$;25.77 718;28 P 1>$125.77 7188>5 P 1>$125.77 718;;> P 20$577.77 7188>; P 1>$125.77 71889= P 1>$125.77 7188=7 P 1>$125.77 718;;0 P 20$577.77 718;;2 P 2>$>>7.77 ?ate 0@19@=2 1mount

"2C6*? ?3A3"36*

,G.R. No. 129900. October 2, 2001-

.AN/ CARA0 # 0O1ITARIO, petitioner, vs. HON. CO2RT OF A((/A10 a d (/O(1/ OF TH/ (HI1I((IN/0, respondents. 3/CI0ION 42I025+ING, J.: )his is an a!!eal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of 1!!ealsB1C which affirmed the decision of the (egional )rial Court of &ue'on City$ Branch =2$ finding !etitioner Dane Caras y "olitario guilty of 15 counts of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) iolations. )he facts of the case as found by the Court of 1!!eals are as follows. D1*2 ". C1(1" has a!!ealed from the %udgment of con iction in fifteen (15) related cases of Aiolation of the Bouncing Checks Law. )he first 3nformation (docketed as Criminal Case *o. &@=0@>>>27) against her reads as follows. )hat on or about the 5th day of Danuary 1==2 in &ue'on City$ Phili!!ines$ the said accused did then and there wilfully$ unlawfully and feloniously make or draw and issue to Chu ,ang ). 1tien'a to a!!ly on account or for alue PC3 Bank$ Commonwealth 1 e. Branch Check *o. 7188>> dated Earch 19$ 1==2 !ayable to the order of C1"F in the amount of P1>$125.77 Phili!!ine Currency$ said accused well knowing that at the time of issue she did not ha e sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for !ayment of such check in full u!on its !resentment which check when !resented for !ayment was subse-uently dishonored by the drawee bank for 1ccount Closed and des!ite recei!t of notice of such dishonor$ said accused failed to !ay said Chu ,ang ). 1tien'a the amount of said check or to make arrangement for full !ayment of the same within fi e (5) banking days after recei ing said notice.

0@70@=2

0@70@=2

>@70@=2

>@19@=2

>@19@=2

0@19@=2

>@70@=2

>@72@=2

0@19@=2

7188;9 P 8$7;2.57 718899 P 1>$125.77 718;;5 P 20$577.77 7188;8 P 8$7;2.57 7188;= P5>7$019.05

0@19@=2

0@70@=2

0. 3n Crim. Case *o. &@=0@>>>22 I the Court finds accused Dane Caras :H3L), beyond reasonable doubt for Aiolation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and is hereby sentenced to suffer an im!risonment of four (>) months and to indemnify the offended !arty in the amount of P1>$125.77 and to !ay the costs/ >. 3n Crim. Case *o. &@=0@>>>20 I the Court finds accused Dane Caras :H3L), beyond reasonable doubt for Aiolation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and is hereby sentenced to suffer an im!risonment of four (>) months and to indemnify the offended !arty in the amount of P1>$125.77 and to !ay the costs/ 5. 3n Crim. Case *o. &@=0@>>>2> I the Court finds accused Dane Caras :H3L), beyond reasonable doubt for Aiolation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and is hereby sentenced to suffer an im!risonment of siG (;) months and to indemnify the offended !arty in the amount of P20$577.77 and to !ay the costs/ ;. 3n Crim. Case *o. &@=0@>>>25 I the Court finds accused Dane Caras :H3L), beyond reasonable doubt for Aiolation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and is hereby sentenced to suffer an im!risonment of four (>) months and to indemnify the offended !arty in the amount of P1>$125.77 and to !ay the costs/ 8. 3n Crim. Case *o. &@=0@>>>2; I the Court finds accused Dane Caras :H3L), beyond reasonable doubt for Aiolation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and is hereby sentenced to suffer an im!risonment of four (>) months and to indemnify the offended !arty in the amount of P1>$125.77 and to !ay the costs/ 9. 3n Crim. Case *o. &@=0@>>>28 I the Court finds accused Dane Caras :H3L), beyond reasonable doubt for Aiolation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and is hereby sentenced to suffer an im!risonment of four (>) months and to indemnify the offended !arty in the amount of P1>$125.77 and to !ay the costs/ =. 3n Crim. Case *o. &@=0@>>>29 I the Court finds accused Dane Caras :H3L), beyond reasonable doubt for Aiolation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and is hereby sentenced to suffer an im!risonment of siG (;) months and to indemnify the offended !arty in the amount of P20$577.77 and to !ay the costs/ 17. 3n Crim. Case *o. &@=0@>>>2= I the Court finds accused Dane Caras :H3L), beyond reasonable doubt for Aiolation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and is hereby sentenced to suffer an im!risonment of siG (;) months and to indemnify the offended !arty in the amount of P2>$>>7.77 and to !ay the costs/

5@72@=2

0@70@=2

0@01@=2

#hen the checks were !resented for de!osit or encashment$ they were all dishonored for the reason 41ccount Closed5. ?es!ite re!eated erbal and written demands made on her to re!lace the dishonored checks with cash$ she failed and refused to do so. )he accused admitted that she issued the fifteen (15) checks. "he claimed$ howe er$ that they were gi en to Eari ic *ak!il$ B2C alleged sister of the com!lainant$ as 4guarantee de!osit$5 that is$ for e ery gift check and !urchase order gi en to the accused$ she issued !ersonal checks to guarantee its !ayment. )he checks are not to be encashed nor de!osited with any bank. #ith regard to Check *o. 7188;= in the amount of P5>7$01;.05 (2Gh. 465)$ accused claimed that she entrusted the said check to Eari ic *ak!il in blank$ with her signature but without any amount or numerical figures on the face of the check. 6n Eay 10$ 1==>$ the Court a quo rendered its %udgment with the following dis!osition. #F2(2<6(2$ Dudgment is hereby rendered as follows. 1. 3n Crim. Case *o. &@=0@>>>27 I the Court finds accused Dane Caras :H3L), beyond reasonable doubt for Aiolation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and is hereby sentenced to suffer an im!risonment of four (>) months and to indemnify the offended !arty in the amount of P1>$125.77 and to !ay the costs/ 2. 3n Crim. Case *o. &@=0@>>>21 I the Court finds accused Dane Caras :H3L), beyond reasonable doubt for Aiolation of Batas Pambans Blg. 22 and is hereby sentenced to suffer an im!risonment of four (>) months and indemnify the offended !arty in the amount of P1>$;25.77 and to !ay the costs/

11. 3n Crim. Case *o. &@=0@>>>07 I the Court finds accused Dane Caras :H3L), beyond reasonable doubt for Aiolation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and is hereby sentenced to suffer an im!risonment of two (2) months and to indemnify the offended !arty in the amount of P8$7;2.57 and to !ay the costs/ 12. 3n Crim. Case *o. &@=0@>>>01 I the Court finds accused Dane Caras :H3L), beyond reasonable doubt for Aiolation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and is hereby sentenced to suffer an im!risonment of four (>) months and to indemnify the offended !arty in the amount of P1>$125.77 and to !ay the costs/ 10. 3n Crim. Case *o. &@=0@>>>02 I the Court finds accused Dane Caras :H3L), beyond reasonable doubt for Aiolation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and is hereby sentenced to suffer an im!risonment of siG (;) months and to indemnify the offended !arty in the amount of P20$577.77 and to !ay the costs/ 1>. 3n Crim. Case *o. &@=0@>>>00 I the Court finds accused Dane Caras :H3L), beyond reasonable doubt for Aiolation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and is hereby sentenced to suffer an im!risonment of two (2) months and to indemnify the offended !arty in the amount of P8$7;2.57 and to !ay the costs/ 15. 3n Crim. Case *o. &@=0@>>>0> I the Court finds accused Dane Caras :H3L), beyond reasonable doubt for Aiolation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and is hereby sentenced to suffer an im!risonment of eight (9) months and to indemnify the offended !arty in the amount of P5>7$019.05 and to !ay the costs. "6 6(?2(2?.B0C 6n Dune 10$ 1==>$ !etitioner filed a Eotion for (econsideration which was denied by the trial court in an 6rder dated "e!tember 22$ 1==>. Petitioner then filed an a!!eal with the Court of 1!!eals which rendered %udgment as follows. #F2(2<6(2$ the a!!ealed decision is hereby 1<<3(E2? in toto. Costs against a!!ellant. "6 6(?2(2?.B>C 6n 1!ril 11$ 1==8$ !etitioner filed a Eotion for (econsideration which was denied by the Court of 1!!eals in a (esolution dated Duly 15$ 1==8. Fence$ this !etition$ in which !etitioner alleges that the Court of 1!!eals erred.

3* *6) (2"6LA3*: )F2 3""H2" B(6H:F) 6H) 3* )F2 E6)36* <6( (2C6*"3?2(1)36*/

33 3* C6EPL2)2L, 3:*6(3*: )F2 PH(P6"2 6< )F2 3""H1*C2 6< )F2 CF2CJ"/ 333 3* C6EPL2)2L, 3:*6(3*: )F2 L1CJ 6< P2("6*1L3), 6< )F2 P(3A1)2 C6EPL13*1*) )6 3*3)31)2 1*? P(6"2CH)2 )F2"2 C1"2"/ 3A 3* *6) 1C&H3))3*: )F2 1CCH"2? <6( L1CJ 6< C6*"3?2(1)36* (1" )6 PC3B CF2CJ *6 7188;= <6( P5>7$019.05) 1*? <6( L1CJ 6< J*6#L2?:2 6< )F2 3*"H<<3C32*C, 6< F2( <H*?"/ A 3* C6EPL2)2L, 3:*6(3*: )F1) )F2 C6H() 1 &H6 F1? *6 )2((3)6(31L DH(3"?3C)36* 6A2( )F2 6<<2*"2. B5C Petitioner admits ha ing issued the checks sub%ect of this case$ sa e for one$ but insists that she issued them merely to guarantee !ayment of her obligation to a certain Eari ic *ak!il/ they were not su!!osed to ha e been de!osited in a bank. Petitioner also denies ha ing transacted with !ri ate com!lainant Chu ,ang ). 1tien'a$ and asserts that the latter did not ha e !ersonality to !rosecute this case. Petitioner argues that one of the checks$ PC3B check no. 7188;=$ was issued in blank. "he claims that this check was issued without consideration and that the element of the crime that the check must be issued for alue is lacking as regards this !articular check. 1lso in relation to her fourth assignment of error$ !etitioner asserts that she was not !ro!erly notified of the dishonor of her checks. "he maintains that the !rosecution failed to show that she recei ed the notices of dishonor !ur!ortedly sent to her. "he !oints out that no return card nor acknowledgment recei!t for the first demand letter was !resented in e idence. #hile there was a return card attached to the second demand letter$ this was not marked nor offered in e idence$ and hence must be ignored.B;C Petitioner also assails the %urisdiction of the &ue'on City ()C o er the case$ maintaining that there is no e idence showing that the checks were issued and deli ered in &ue'on City. *either is there e idence as to where the !ri ate com!lainant recei ed the checks$ and whether or not she recei ed them from the accused herself. <or its !art$ the 6ffice of the "olicitor :eneral argues that B.P. 22 does not make any distinction regarding the !ur!ose for which the checks were issued. )hus$ it is of no moment e en if it were true that$ as claimed by accused$ the checks she issued were meant only to guarantee !ayment of her obligation. Criminal liability attaches whether the checks were issued in !ayment of an obligation or to guarantee !ayment of that obligation. B8C )here is iolation of B.P. 22 when a worthless check is issued and is subse-uently dishonored by the drawee bank. )he 6": also !oints out that accused did not deny ha ing issued the sub%ect checks.

1fter a careful consideration of the records and the submissions of the !arties$ we find that the resolution of this !etition hinges on the issue of whether the !rosecution e idence suffices to con ict the accused$ herein !etitioner Dane Caras. )he elements of the offense under "ection 1 of B.P. Blg. 22 are. (1) drawing and issuance of any check to a!!ly on account or for alue/ (2) knowledge by the maker$ drawer$ or issuer that at the time of issue he did not ha e sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the !ayment of such check in full u!on !resentment/ and (0) said check is subse-uently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit$ or would ha e been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer$ without any alid reason$ ordered the bank to sto! !ayment. B9C #hat the law !unishes is the issuance of a bouncing check and not the !ur!ose for which the check was issued$ nor the terms and conditions of its issuance. )here are matters we need to !ursue$ because$ as said inLlamado v. Court of Appeals$ B=C Kto determine the reasons for which checks are issued$ or the terms and conditions for their issuance$ will greatly erode the faith the !ublic re!oses in the stability and commercial alue of checks as currency substitutes$ and bring about ha oc in trade and in banking communities. )hus$ !etitioner+s contention that she issued the checks sub%ect of this case merely to guarantee !ayment of her obligation is hardly a defense. )he mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum and is !unishable under B.P. 22$ !ro ided the other elements of the offense are !ro!erly !ro ed. 3n !articular$ we note that the law !ro ides for a prima facie rule of e idence. Jnowledge of insufficiency of funds in or credit with the bank is !resumed from the act of making$ drawing$ and issuing a check !ayment of which is refused by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds when !resented within =7 days from the date of issue. Fowe er$ this !resum!tion may be rebutted by the accused@!etitioner. "uch !resum!tion does not hold when the maker or drawer !ays or makes arrangements for the !ayment of the check within fi e banking days after recei ing notice that such check had been dishonored. B17C )hus$ it is essential for the maker or drawer to be notified of the dishonor of her check$ so she could !ay the alue thereof or make arrangements for its !ayment within the !eriod !rescribed by law. Petitioner denies ha ing recei ed any notice that the checks she issued had been dishonored by the drawee bank. 1fter carefully going o er the records of this case$ we find that indeed no clear e idence is shown on whether !etitioner was informed that her checks had been dishonored. )he notice of dishonor$ as held in Lao v. Court of Appeals $B11C may be sent by the offended !arty or the drawee bank. Com!lainant testified that she hired lawyers to !re!are and send the demand letters. B12C )he !rosecution !resented and marked in e idence two letters demanding !ayment which were !ur!ortedly sent to !etitioner. Fowe er$ the

!rosecution !resented no e idence that would establish !etitioner+s actual recei!t of any demand letter which could ha e ser ed as notice to !etitioner. *one of the letters contained an indication that they were actually recei ed by !etitioner. *o acknowledgement recei!t nor return card for the first and second demand letters were offered in e idence. "uch omission and neglect on the !art of the !rosecution is fatal to its cause. )here is testimony on record that !ri ate com!lainant asked !etitioner to !ay the alue of the checks. Fowe er$ there is no mention of when the demand to !ay was made$ whether before or after the checks were dishonored by the drawee bank. B10C 3t is !ossible that !ayment was re-uested before the checks were de!osited$ since$ as testified to by !etitioner$ the usual arrangement was that she issues checks and then she re!laces them with cash. )he checks were not de!osited but were$ instead$ returned to her.B1>C Fowe er$ according to the !rosecution$ !etitioner started ha ing !roblems with her cash flow resulting to her inability to re!lace the checks she issued with cash. But such !roblems leading to illi-uidity of !etitioner are not material elements of the crime. #hat is !ertinent here is !rior notice to the drawer that her checks ha e been dishonored$ so that within fi e banking days from recei!t of such notice she could !ay the check fully or make arrangements for such !ayment. 2 en the testimony of Eanuel Panuelos$ branch manager of PC3 Bank where !etitioner maintained her checking account$ indicates that the bank also failed to send notice to !etitioner for her to !ay the alue of the checks or make arrangements for their !ayment within fi e days from the dishonor of the said checks. *ote his testimony on cross@eGamination. &. ?id you gi e the accused notice within fi e (5) banking days within which to make arrangement with the bank within ninety (=7) days regarding the bounced checksL

1tty. PalaMa. ,our Fonor$ that is already answered by the witness. 1tty. ?ela )orre. *o$ that is not the answer$ what 3 want is that..... Court. (eform 1tty. ?ela )orre. 3s it not your !rocedure that when a check bounced$ you gi e notice to the .... 1. &. 3t is not our !rocedure. 3t is not your !rocedureL

1. &.

*o. 3n fact we do it erbally.... 3s it not standard o!erating !rocedure in your bank to gi e customers notice within fi e (5) banking days to make arrangement with the bank within ninety (=7) days regarding the bounced checkL *o$ that is not our !rocedure. ,ou do not follow that !rocedureL #e do not. )hat is not our standard !rocedure. B15C

actuall# served o $et"t"o er. (et"t"o er has a r"&ht to de%a d ) a d the bas"c $ostulates o! !a"r ess re*u"re ) that the ot"ce o! d"sho or be actuall# se t to a d rece"ved b# her to a!!ord her the o$$ortu "t# to avert $rosecut"o u der +.(. +l&. 22. (Hnderscoring and em!hasis su!!lied.) 1bsent a clear showing that !etitioner actually knew of the dishonor of her checks and was gi en the o!!ortunity to make arrangements for !ayment as !ro ided for under the law$ we cannot with moral certainty con ict her of iolation of B.P. Blg. 22. )he failure of the !rosecution to !ro e that !etitioner was gi en the re-uisite notice of dishonor is a clear ground for her ac-uittal. B1=C ?iscussion of the other assigned errors need no longer detain us. Fowe er$ it should be stressed that this decision in no way !re%udices the ci il obligations$ if any$ that she might ha e incurred by reason of her transactions with !ri ate com!lainant. <or we note that !etitioner does not deny ha ing issued the sub%ect checks. B27C 1nd while no criminal liability could be im!osed in this case for lack of sufficient !roof of the offense charged$ a fair distinction should be made as to ci il as!ects of the transaction between the !arties. 6H/R/FOR/$ the assailed decision of the Court of 1!!eals affirming that of the (egional )rial Court$ is (2A2("2? and "2) 1"3?2. Petitioner Dane Caras is 1C&H3))2? on the ground that her guilt has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. )his decision is without !re%udice to the filing of an a!!ro!riate ci il case$ if warranted$ to determine the ci il as!ects of !etitioner+s transactions. *o !ronouncement as to costs. 0O OR3/R/3. Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Buena, and De Leon, r., ., concur.

1. &. 1.

Petitioner on the witness stand denied recei ing any notice from the bank. &. Eadam #itness$ all these checks were de!osited with the bank in one day. #ill you !lease tell this Fonorable Court when the first check bounced by the reason of ?13<$ were you notified by your de!ositary bank which is PC3B within fi e (5) banking days to make arrangement within...days regarding that bouncing checksL *o$ sir$ 3 did not recei e any notice. B1;C

1.

)he absence of !roof that !etitioner recei ed any notice informing her of the fact that her checks were dishonored and gi ing her fi e banking days within which to make arrangements for !ayment of the said checks !re ents the a!!lication of the dis!utable !resum!tion that she had knowledge of the insufficiency of her funds at the time she issued the checks. 1bsent such !resum!tion$ the burden shifts to the !rosecution to !ro e that !etitioner had knowledge of the insufficiency of her funds when she issued the said checks$ otherwise$ she cannot be held liable under the law.B18C 2 en more crucial$ the absence of any notice of dishonor !ersonally sent to and recei ed by the accused is a iolation of the !etitioner+s right to due !rocess. )his is in effect our ruling in Lao vs. Court of Appeals$ B19C where we held. 3t has been obser ed that the "tate$ under this statute$ actually offers the iolator 4a com!romise by allowing him to !erform some act which o!erates to !reem!t the criminal action$ and if he o!ts to !erform it the action is abated5. )his was also com!ared 4to certain laws5(citing 2.6. 178$ 90 6.:. *o. 8$ !. 58; (<ebruary 1;$ 1=98)$ and 2.6. 122$ 9= 6.:. *o. >>$ !. ;0>= (*o ember 1$ 1==0) allowing illegal !ossessors of firearms a certain !eriod of time to surrender the illegally !ossessed firearms to the :o ernment$ without incurring any criminal liability5 (citing *itafan$ ?a id :.$ *otes and Comments on the Bouncing Checks Law (BP Blg. 22)$ !!. 121@122). 3n this light$ the full !ayment of the amount a!!earing in the check within fi e banking days from notice of dishonor is a 4com!lete defense5 (citing *a arro s. Court of 1!!eals$ 20> "C(1 ;0=). The abse ce o! a ot"ce o! d"sho or ecessar"l# de$r"ves a accused a o$$ortu "t# to $reclude a cr"%" al $rosecut"o . Accord" &l#, $rocedural due $rocess clearl# e 'o" s that a ot"ce o! d"sho or be

B1C B2C B0C B>C B5C B;C B8C B9C

C1 !ollo$ !!. 172@115. 1lso s!elled as 4*a!il5 and 4*ar!il5 in the records. ()C (ecords$ !!. 112@11;. C1 !ollo$ !. 115. !ollo$ !!. 19@1=. !ollo$ !.10;. Citing "ue v. #eople$ :.(. *o. L@85218@19$ 15> "C(1 1;7$ 1;> (1=98).

$ieva, r. v. Court of Appeals$ :.(. *os. =58=;@=8$ 282 "C(1 1$ 12 (1==8).

B=C :.(. *o. ==702$ 287 "C(1 >20$ >01 (1==8).

B17C

B.P. Blg. 22$ "ection 2 !ro ides.

"2C. 2. %vidence of &no'led(e of insufficient funds. @@ )he making$ drawing and issuance of a check !ayment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank$ when !resented within ninety (=7) days from the date of the check$ shall be prima facie e idence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer !ays the holder thereof the amount due thereon$ or makes arrangements for !ayment in full by the drawee of such check within fi e (5) banking days after recei ing notice that such check has not been !aid by the drawee.
B11C B12C B10C B1>C B15C B1;C B18C B19C B1=C B27C

:.(. *o. 11=189$ 28> "C(1 582$ 5=2 (1==8). )"*$ Chu ,ang 1tien'a$ 6ctober 5$ 1==0$ !!. 18@27. )"*$ Dane Caras$ ?ecember 1;$ 1==0$ !!. 10@1>. )d. at 5. )"*$ Eanuel Panuelos$ 6ctober 2;$ 1==0$ !!. 17@11. )"*$ Dane Caras$ ?ecember 1;$ 1==0$ !. =. )dos vs. Court of Appeals, :.(. *o. 117892$ 2=; "C(1 1=>$ 217 (1==9) . :.(. *o. 11=189$ 28> "C(1 582$ 5=> (1==8). "ee *in( v. #eople$ :.(. *o. 1015>7$ 01= "C(1 ;5>$ ;87 (1===).

"ee )"*$ Chu ,ang 1tien'a$ 6ctober 5$ 1==0$ !. 1;/ )"*$ Dane Caras$ ?ecember 1;$ 1==0$ !. 11.