Amada Resterio vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 177438 ; 24 September 2012
PONENTE: Bersamin
SUBJECTS: B.P. 22, Written Notice of Dishonor, Registry Receipt Return
FACTS:
The petitioner was charged for violation of B.P. 22 when she issued a postdated check sometime on May 2002 allegedly being aware that the account to be drawn against does not have sufficient funds. During trial, the accused contends that she does not own the check she used as collateral thus she should not be held liable for B.P. 22.
ISSUE:
- Whether or not B.P. 22 requires that the dishonored check must be owned by the accused
- Whether or not the lack of a written notice of dishonor is fatal to a case for violation of B.P. 22
HELD:
- No, the law did not look either at the actual ownership of the check or of the account against which it was made, drawn, or issued, or at the intention of the drawee, maker or issuer.
- Yes, second element or the knowledge of the petitioner as the issuer of the check that at the time of issue there were no sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment is inexistent.
To establish the existence of the second element written notice of the dishonor to the drawer should be presented. The private complainant sent his notice of dishonor by registered mail and presented the registry return receipt. However, the mere presentment of registry return receipts is not sufficient but must be accompanied by the authenticating affidavit of the person who had actually mailed the written notices of dishonor. The authentication by affidavit of the mailer or mailers is necessary in order for the giving of the notices of dishonor by registered mailto be regarded as clear proof of the giving of the notices of dishonor to predicate the existence of the second element of the offense.
