BP 22 Hour 02 (San Mateo vs.

People of the Philippines)

September 17, 2014 by The Lawyer's Post

Erlinda ordered from ITSP represented by Ravin

assorted yarns amounting to P327,394.14. In payment
thereof, Erkinda issued eleven post dated checks.
Everytime a check matures, Erlinda would always call
ask Ravin to hold in abeyance the check deposit. While
Ravin initially acceded to her request, Erlinda continued
to fail to settle her account, so Ravin deposited the
checks, all of which were dishonoured for because the
account was closed. Ravin thru counsel then filed a
notice of dishonor. A copy was personally served to
Erlinda but received only by the guard, who was
instructed to deliver it to Erlinda. A copy was also sent
to thru post office by registered mail with return card,
but the letter was returned to his lawyer with notation
N/S Party Out. Three notices were sent to Erlinda to
claim the parcel but she did not claim it.
Ravin then filed a case for violation of BP 22 against
Erlinda. The lower court convicted him which the RTC
and the CA affirmed. The Supreme Court initially denied
Erlindas petition, but granted her motion for
reconsideration and acquitted her. The Supreme Court
opined that the prosecution failed to establish all the
elements of BP 22, particularly the knowledge of the
maker (Erlinda) that at the time of issue she has
sufficient credit or funds in the bank for presentment for
payment of the check:

Here, there is no basis in concluding that San Mateo

knew of the insufficiency of her funds. While she may
have requested Sehwani in her letters dated October 8,
2005 and November 11, 2005, to defer depositing all the
checks, with maturity dates of July and August 2005,
otherwise, her account will close, such act did not
amount to an admission that, when she issued those
checks, she knew that she would have no sufficient
funds in the drawee bank to pay for them.
Upon the other hand, the records show that Sehwani
tried to serve the notice of dishonor to San Mateo two
times. On the first occasion, Sehwanis counsel sent a
demand letter to San Mateos residence at Greenhills,
San Juan which the security guard refused to accept.
Thus, the liaison officer left the letter with the security
guard with the instruction to hand it to San Mateo. But
the prosecution failed to show that the letter ever
reached San Mateo.
On the second occasion, Sehwanis counsel sent a
demand letter to San Mateo by registered mail which
was returned with the notation N/S Party Out 12/12/05
and that San Mateo did not claim it despite three
notices to her.
It has been the consistent ruling of this Court that
receipts for registered letters including return receipts
do not themselves prove receipt; they must be properly
authenticated to serve as proof of receipt of the letters,
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 the accused

received such notice. It is not enough for the
prosecution to prove that a notice of dishonor was sent
to the accused. 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 accused.
G.R. No. 200090 March 6, 2013, ERLINDA C. SAN MATEO,
Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.