Case Digest: JAMES SVENDSEN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES 546 SCRA 659 (2008)

JAMES SVENDSEN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES 546 SCRA 659 (2008)

The failure of the prosecution to prove the existence and receipt by the accused of the requisite written notice of dishonor and that he was given at least five banking days within which to settle his account constitutes sufficient ground for his acquittal. Cristina Reyes (Reyes) extended a loan to James Svendsen (Svendsen) in the amount of P200,000, to bear interest at 10% a month. After Svendsen had partially paid his obligation, he failed to settle the balance which had reached P380,000 inclusive of interest. Reyes thus filed a complaint against Svendson, which was eventually settled when Svendson paid her P200,000 and issued in her favor a postdated International Exchange Bank check. The same was co- signed by one Wilhem Bolton. When the check was presented for payment it was dishonored for having been Drawn Against Insufficient Funds (DAIF). Reyes then filed a complaint against Svendsen and his co-signatory to the check, Bolton, for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. Svendsen denied the allegation against him stating that he has no knowledge about the insufficiency of his funds with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment. The MeTC rendered judgment and found Svendsin guilty of the offense charged. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MeTC judgment. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA erred in denying the Svendson‘s appeal despite failure of the prosecution to prove all the elements of violation of B.P. Blg. 22

HELD:

For Svendsen to be validly convicted of the crime under B.P. Blg. 22, the following requisites must thus concur: (1) the making, drawing and 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 he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the 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 The spirit and letter of the Bouncing Checks Law require for the act to be punished there under not only that the accused issued a check that is dishonored, but also that the accused has actually been notified in writing of the fact of dishonor. This is consistent with the rule that penal statues must be construed strictly against the state and liberally in favor of the accused. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who, having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank. Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act. The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds.