GR No 200090

Erlinda San Mateo vs People of the Philippines

GR No 200090         March 6, 2013

Facts:

     San Mateo was charged with the violation of BP Blg 22 when she issued postdated Metrobank checks to Sehwani as a payment for the assorted yarns that she ordered. Whenever a check matured, however, San Mateo would either call or write Sehwani requesting him not to deposit the checks due to lack of sufficient funds. Unfortunately, San Mateo continued to fail to settle account. When Sehwani deposited the check, the same was dishonored for insufficiency of funds.

         MeTC found San Mateo guilty of violation of BP Blg 22. RTC affirmed the MeTC decision. CA affirmed RTC decision and reiterated that all the elements for violation of BP 22 had been sufficiently proven.

Issue:

         WON San Mateo is guilty of violation against BP Blg 22

Held:

          No, San Mateo is not guilty of violation against BP Blg 22.

         SC stated that to be liable for violation of BP Blg 22, the following essential elements must be present: 1) the making, drawing, issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; 2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue e does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and 3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.

       In this case, the third element is present and have been adequately established. With respect to the first element, the Court gives full faith and credit to the findings of the lower courts that the checks were issued for value. The second element was not sufficiently established. BP Blg 22 creates a presumption that the issuer of the check was aware of the insufficiency of funds when he issued a check and the bank dishonored it. This presumption, however, arises only after it is proved that the issuer received a written notice of dishonor and that, within 5 days from receipt thereof, failed to pay the amount of the check or to make arrangements for its payment.

        Since there is insufficient proof that San Mateo actually received the notice of dishonor, the presumption that she knew of the insufficiency of her funds cannot arise. For this reason, the Court cannot convict her with moral certainty of violation of BP 22.