Republic of the Philippines

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

BRANCH 1
City of Manila

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff
-versus- CRIM. CASE No. 870-M-2012
For: Violation of B.P. 22

HENRY CHAO
Accused
x------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ACCUSED

Accused, through counsel, alleges that:

1. Accused Henry Chao is charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court
(MeTC) with five (5) counts for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
(B.P. 22) in an information, the pertinent portion of which reads:

2. That on dates, 1 January 2011, 1 February 2011, 1 March 2011, 1

April 2011 and 1 May 2011 in the City of Manila, Philippines,
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and knowingly
make or draw and issue to Ben Que to apply on account or for
the value of the following ALLOY BANK CHECK Nos.
described below:

Check Nos. : 1, 2, 3,4, 5

All Drawn Against : Alloy Bank, Pasong Tamo
Branch, Makati City
All In the amount of : P. 12, 500.00 each check
Postdated : 1 July 2011, 1 August 2011, 1
September 2011, 1 October 2011
and 1 November 2011
Payable to : Mr. Ben Que
1
 said accused well knowing that at the time of issue, he did
not have sufficient funds in or credit with the ALLOY
BANK (drawee bank) for the payment in full of the face
amount of such check when presented for payment within
(90) days from the date thereof, was subsequently
dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason drawn against
“Account Closed” and despite receipt of notice of such
dishonor, the accused failed to pay said payee the face
amount of said check or make arrangement for full payment
within five (5) banking days after receiving notice.

THE STATEMENT OF FACTS:

In order that this honorable court may be enlightened and guided in the
judicious disposition of the above-entitled case, cited hereunder the material,
relevant and pertinent facts of the case to wit:

1. Accused Henry Chao, single, Filipino, of legal age and a resident of

Municipality of Bocaue, Bulacan;

2. That the accused is the manager of Atlas Parts (hereinafter “Atlas”)

3. The accused on behalf of Atlas contracted a loan with Mr. Ben Que in the
amount of Php. 50,000.00;

4. The parties agreed that the loan will payable in five (5) equal monthly
installments of Php. 12,500.00 with 5% monthly interest;

5. That the loan is secured by five (5) Negotiable Order of Withdrawal Slips
(hereinafter referred to as NOW Slips) which were issued and delivered by
the accused to Mr. Ben Que on December 1, 2010;

2
 6. That the accused have not received any demand for payment nor was he
informed of such dishonour;

7. That Mr. Ben Que filed a case against the accused for with five (5) counts
of violation of B.P 22 before MeTC Manila and have also initiated another
civil case for collection of sum of money to before courts of different
jurisdiction.

THE STATEMENT OF ISSUE

1. The accused is being charged of five counts under B.P. 22 where in fact he
should not be charged at all. The primary issue to be resolved is whether the
accused should be charged under B.P. 22

THE ARGUMENT
1. In the case of Amada vs People( G.R. 177438), The court held that proof of
consists not only in the presentation as evidence of the registry return
receipt but also of the registry receipt together with the authenticating
affidavit of the person mailing the notice of dishonor. Without the
authenticating affidavit, the proof of giving the notice of dishonor is
insufficient unless the mailer personally testifies in court on the sending by
registered mail.

2. During the Trial, complainant-witness testified that he merely assumed that

defendant has received the demand letter because it was not returned to
him.

3. 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. In civil cases, service made through registered mail is proved
by the registry receipt issued by the mailing office and an affidavit of the
person mailing of facts showing compliance with Section 7 of Rule 13 (See
Section 13, Rule 13, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). If, in addition to the

3
 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.
In the instant case, the prosecution failed to present the testimony, or at
least the affidavit, of the person mailing that, indeed, the demand letter was
sent.

4. To conclude, the defendant was never informed of any demand which is

necessary in a case under B.P. 22, lacking the requirement the case should
be dismissed.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed for of this Honorable Court that
judgment be rendered acquitting the accused from the crime charged.
Accused likewise prays for such other and further relief as this honorable court
may deem just and equitable in the premises.

City of Malolos, Bulacan, Philippines, February 28, 2019.

ATTY. JONATHAN BAUTISTA

Defense Counsel
MCLE Compliance No. IV-001435
November 4, 2014 Roll No. 1234