Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 379 views

    Dico v. CA and People

    Uploaded by

    AntonJohnVincentFrias
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the prosecution failed to prove all elements of violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, which prohibits issuing checks without sufficient funds. Specifically: 1) For one of the checks, the notice of dishonor sent to the defendant was premature, as it was sent before the check's maturity date. 2) A valid notice of dishonor, requiring payment within 5 days, is necessary to create a presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds. This notice was not properly sent. 3) Without this presumption or other evidence, the prosecution did not prove the defendant knew of insufficient funds, so an element of the crime was not satisfied. The defendant was acquitted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dico v. CA and People

    Uploaded by

    AntonJohnVincentFrias
    379 views5 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the prosecution failed to prove all elements of violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, which prohibits issuing checks without sufficient funds. Specifically: 1) For one of the checks, the notice of dishonor sent to the defendant was premature, as it was sent before the check's maturity date. 2) A valid notice of dishonor, requiring payment within 5 days, is necessary to create a presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds. This notice was not properly sent. 3) Without this presumption or other evidence, the prosecution did not prove the defendant knew of insufficient funds, so an element of the crime was not satisfied. The defendant was acquitted.

    Original Description:

    The digest is not mine. :)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the prosecution failed to prove all elements of violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, which prohibits issuing checks without sufficient funds. Specifically: 1) For one of the checks, the notice of dishonor sent to the defendant was premature, as it was sent before the check's maturity date. 2) A valid notice of dishonor, requiring payment within 5 days, is necessary to create a presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds. This notice was not properly sent. 3) Without this presumption or other evidence, the prosecution did not prove the defendant knew of insufficient funds, so an element of the crime was not satisfied. The defendant was acquitted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    379 views5 pages

    Dico v. CA and People

    Uploaded by

    AntonJohnVincentFrias
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the prosecution failed to prove all elements of violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, which prohibits issuing checks without sufficient funds. Specifically: 1) For one of the checks, the notice of dishonor sent to the defendant was premature, as it was sent before the check's maturity date. 2) A valid notice of dishonor, requiring payment within 5 days, is necessary to create a presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds. This notice was not properly sent. 3) Without this presumption or other evidence, the prosecution did not prove the defendant knew of insufficient funds, so an element of the crime was not satisfied. The defendant was acquitted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 5

    Dico vs.

    CA and People
    G.R. No. 141669. February 28, 2005

    Facts:
    Jaime Dico, now petitioner, was charged on 28 March 1994 with
    three (3) counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 before the
    MTC

    When arraigned on 11 January 1995, accused pleaded not guilty to


    each of the charges. Upon agreement of the parties, pre-trial of the cases
    was waived.[6] The cases were consolidated and were jointly heard.

    He included the above-mentioned four (4) post dated checks as a


    sign of good faith; and as a way of commitment to pay his outstanding
    balance to the complainant which is to [be] amortized as follows: May
    12, 1993 P100,000.00; June 12, 1993 - P200,000.00; July 12, 1993
    P300,000.00; and on August 12, 1993 P300,000.00; but his proposal was
    rejected by the complainants top management in Manila; that based on
    Exh. 8 which is the Summary furnished by Debbie Dy, incumbent
    Branch Manager of the complainant network in Cebu City, his
    outstanding balance to the complainant is P752,389.19, but with the
    payment of P100,000.00 he made on April 7, 1993, his balance to the
    complainant is P652,389.19.

    That he does not understand why his total obligation to the


    complainant has already reached P1,035,589.28 when his credit line is
    only P499,000.00; hence, he approached the complainants manager to
    reconcile his accounts and find out where the complainant was mistaken;
    that even if his accounts were reconciled, he cannot admit that his
    obligation to the complainant has already reached millions; and that the
    problem with the complainant is that it did not return to him the checks
    which he sent to the complainant together with his proposal to reconcile
    his accounts.

    That on May 31, 1993, he filed a Petition For Insolvency with the
    Regional Trial Court
    Issue:
    Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove all the elements
    of B.P. Blg. 22

    Held:

    No.

    The essential elements of the offense penalized under Section 1,


    B.P. Blg. 22 are as follows: (1) the making, drawing and issuance of any
    check to apply to 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
    or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon
    its presentment; and (3) 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.[27] The prosecution has the burden to prove all the elements
    of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to do so will necessarily
    result in exoneration.

    Re: Criminal Case No. 38255-R.

    As regards FEBTC Check No. 369404[32] dated 12 June 1993


    which was deposited on 14 June 1993, petitioner maintains that the
    notice of dishonor given for said check was not the one required by law
    since said notice was given before the check became due and before it
    was deposited.

    The record of the case shows the only letter received by petitioner
    involving the three checks subject of these cases was the one dated 08
    June 1993.[33] This letter sent by the counsel of private complainant
    asked petitioner to make good the checks within five (5) days from
    receipt thereof, otherwise, criminal charges for violation of B.P. Blg. 22
    will be filed against him.
    For this presumption to arise, the prosecution must prove the
    following: (a) the check is presented within ninety (90) days from the
    date of the check; (b) the drawer or maker of the check receives notice
    that such check has not been paid by the drawee; and (c) the drawer or
    maker of the check fails to pay the holder of the check the amount due
    thereon, or make arrangements for payment in full within five (5)
    banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by
    the drawee. In other words, the presumption is brought into existence
    only after it is proved that the issuer had received a notice of dishonor
    and that within five days from receipt thereof, he failed to pay the amount
    of the check or to make arrangements for its payment.

    The presumption or prima facie evidence as provided in this


    section cannot arise, if such notice of nonpayment by the drawee bank is
    not sent to the maker or drawer, or if there is no proof as to when such
    notice was received by the drawer, since there would simply be no way
    of reckoning the crucial 5-day period.

    A notice of dishonor received by the maker or drawer of the check


    is thus indispensable before a conviction can ensue. The notice of
    dishonor may be sent by the offended party or the drawee bank.[36] The
    notice must be in writing.[37] A mere oral notice to pay a dishonored
    check will not suffice. The lack of a written notice is fatal for the
    prosecution.

    The requirement of notice, its sending to, and its actual receipt by,
    the drawer or maker of the check gives the latter the option to prevent
    criminal prosecution if he pays the holder of the check the amount due
    thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of
    such check within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that the
    check has not been paid.

    As already stated above, the only notice received by petitioner for


    the three checks involved in these cases was that dated 08 June 1993.
    There is no dispute that there was indeed a demand letter from the
    counsel of Equitable Card Network, Inc., but the same was received by
    petitioner before the checks maturity or due date on 12 June 1993. As
    testified to by prosecution witness Lily Canlas, the demand letter was
    sent to petitioner on 08 June 1993[39] and the check was deposited on
    14 June 1993.[40] The demand letter was sent four days before the date
    of the check and six days before said check was deposited

    This Court rules that as regards FEBTC Check No. 369404,[41]


    petitioner did not receive the notice of dishonor contemplated by the law.
    There was no valid notice of dishonor to speak of. The term notice of
    dishonor denotes that a check has been presented for payment and was
    subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank. This means that the check
    must necessarily be due and demandable because only a check that has
    become due can be presented for payment and subsequently be
    dishonored. A postdated check cannot be dishonored if presented for
    payment before its due date.

    The failure of Equitable Card Network, Inc., to send another letter


    demanding that FEBTC Check No. 369404 be paid within five days after
    it has been dishonored prevents the disputable presumption - that
    petitioner had knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds at the time he
    issued the check - from arising. Absent such presumption, the burden of
    evidence shifts to the prosecution to prove such knowledge.

    There being no evidence presented by the prosecution to show that


    petitioner had knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds at the time he
    issued the check, the second element of the offense was not satisfied.
    Accordingly, having failed to prove all the elements of B.P. Blg. 22,
    petitioner must, perforce, be acquitted in Criminal Case No. 38255-R.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy