G.R. No.

177438 September 24, 2012

AMADA RESTERIO, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Respondent.

In Lozano v. Martinez, this Court ruled that the gravamen of the offense is the act of making and issuing
a worthless check or any check that is dishonored upon its presentment for payment and putting them
in circulation. The law includes all checks drawn against banks. The law was designed to prohibit and
altogether eliminate the deleterious and pernicious practice of issuing checks with insufficient or no
credit or funds therefor. Such practice is deemed a public nuisance, a crime against public order to be
abated. The mere act of issuing a worthless check, either as a deposit, as a guarantee, or even as an
evidence of a pre-existing debt or as a mode of payment is covered by B.P. 22. It is a crime classified as
malum prohibitum. The law is broad enough to include, within its coverage, the making and issuing of a
check by one who has no account with a bank, or where such account was already closed when the
check was presented for payment.

XXX

Also, that the wife of Villadolid verbally informed the petitioner that the check had bounced did not
satisfy the requirement of showing that written notices of dishonor had been made to and received
by the petitioner. The verbal notices of dishonor were not effective because it is already settled that
a notice of dishonor must be in writing.19 The Court definitively ruled on the specific form of the notice
of dishonor in Domagsang v. Court of Appeals:20

XXX

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. The Court is convinced that both the spirit and letter of the Bouncing Checks Law would require
for the act to be punished thereunder not only that the accused issued a check that is dishonored,
but that likewise the accused has actually been notified in writing of the fact of dishonor. The
consistent rule is that penal statutes have to be construed strictly against the State and liberally in
favor of the accused. (Bold emphases supplied; italics in the original text)

MITRA VS PEOPLE
GR 191404

Mitra alleges that there was no proper service on her of the notice of
dishonor and, so, an essential element of the offense is missing. This contention
raises a factual issue that is not proper for review. It is not the function of the Court
to re-examine the finding of facts of the Court of Appeals. Our review is limited to
errors of law and cannot touch errors of facts unless the petitioner shows that the
trial court overlooked facts or circumstances that warrant a different disposition of
the case [11] or that the findings of fact have no basis on record. Hence, with
respect to the issue of the propriety of service on Mitra of the notice of dishonor,
the Court gives full faith and credit to the consistent findings of the MTCC, the
RTC and the CA.

The defense postulated that there was no demand served upon the accused, said denial
deserves scant consideration. Positive allegation of the prosecution that a demand letter was
served upon the accused prevails over the denial made by the accused. Though, having denied
that there was no demand letter served on April 10, 2000, however, the prosecution positively
alleged and proved that the questioned demand letter was served upon the accused on April 10, 2000,
that was at the time they were attending Court hearing before Branch I of this Court. In fact, the
prosecution had submitted a Certification issued by the other Branch of this Court certifying the
fact that the accused were present during the April 10, 2010 hearing. With such straightforward
and categorical testimony of the witness, the Court believes that the prosecution has achieved
what was dismally lacking in the three (3) cases of Betty King, Victor Ting and Caras evidence of
the receipt by the accused of the demand letter sent to her. The Court accepts the prosecutions
narrative that the accused refused to sign the same to evidence their receipt thereof. To require
the prosecution to produce the signature of the accused on said demand letter would be
imposing an undue hardship on it. As well, actual receipt acknowledgment is not and has never
been required of the prosecution either by law or jurisprudence [12] [emphasis supplied]

With the notice of dishonor duly served and disregarded, there arose the
presumption that Mitra and Cabrera knew that there were insufficient funds to
cover the checks upon their presentment for payment. In fact, the account was
already closed.

The presence of the second element of the offense is shown by petitioners admission 12 that he knew
of the insufficiency of his funds in the drawee bank when he issued the check and he allegedly did
not hide the fact from the officials of the Rural Bank of San Juan.