Memorandum

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
8TH JUDICIAL REGION

Municipal Trial Court
Branch 6
Tacloban City
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Criminal Case No. 2018-456

Plaintiff, For: Violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22
-versus-
RACHEL CHU
Accused,
X-------------------------------------X
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ACCUSED
The accused, Rachel Chu, through the undersigned counsel,

unto this Honorable Court most respectfully submits and presents this
Memorandum in the above-titled case and aver that:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ms. Rachel Chu, sole proprietor of JCMA Fashion Atelier is

charged before the Municipal Trial Court of Tacloban City for two
counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
That on or about the 15th day of January 2018, in the City of

Tacloban, Sales Invoice No. 1711, as well as Statement of Accounts
No. 076 indicate that private complainant ABC Textile Co. delivered
several rolls of textile fabrics to JCMA Fashion Atelier owned by Pedro
Penduko, for which the latter issued four Philippine National Bank
(PNB) postdated checks worth P25,000.00 each. When two of these
checks, particularly PNB Check Nos. 951453 and 951454 dated January
21, 2018 and January 22, 2018, respectively, bounced for the reasons
ACCOUNT CLOSED and DRAWN AGAINST INSUFFICIENT
FUNDS, ABC Textile Co, demanded from JCMA Fashion Atelier the
payment of their value through two separate letters both dated
1|Trial Memorandum
January 29, 2018 and February 2, 2018. When the demands went
unheeded, ABC Textile Co filed before Branch 6 of the Municipal Trial
Court of Tacloban City Criminal Case Nos. 68,309-B-98 and 68,310-B-
98 against Rachel Chu for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. The
accused, on the other hand, claims that it was never established that the
bank dishonored the checks or that she was even sent a notice of
dishonor.
ISSUE
The pivotal issue for resolution in this case is whether the

prosecution has proven the guilt of the accused for violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22, beyond reasonable doubt.
ARGUMENTS
To sustain conviction for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the

prosecution must prove the following essential elements, namely:
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 there were no sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its
presentment; and
3. The dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency

of funds or credit or the dishonor for the same reason had not
the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the drawee bank
to stop payment.
In a line of cases, the Supreme Court has emphasized the

importance of proof of receipt of such notice of dishonor, although not
as an element of the offense, but as a means to establish that the
issuer of a check was aware of insufficiency of funds when he issued
the check and the bank dishonored it, in relation to the second element
of the offense and Section 2 of B.P. 22. Considering that the second
element involves a state of mind which is difficult to establish, Section
2 of B.P. 22 creates a presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of
funds, as it reads:
Sec. 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. – 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 days from the date of
2|Trial Memorandum
the check, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds
or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof 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 such check has not been paid
by the drawee.
Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), the prosecution must prove
not only that the accused issued a check that was subsequently
dishonored. It must also establish that the accused was actually
notified that the check was dishonored, and that he or she failed,
within the five banking days from receipt of the notice, to pay the
holder of the check the amount due thereon or to make arrangement
for its payment. Absent proof that the accused received such notice, a
prosecution for violation of the said law cannot prosper. (Campos vs.
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 187401)
Absent proof that the accused received written notice of dishonor,

a prosecution for violation of said law cannot prosper as lack of written
notice of dishonor will prevent the application of presumption of
knowledge of insufficiency, and will deprive the accused of his right to
avert criminal prosecution by performing some acts that would operate
to preempt the criminal action, which is in effect a violation of his right
to due process. The notice must be written, although no particular
form is required under B.P. Blg. 22; it is enough that notice of dishonor
conveys the information that the check issued by the accused was
dishonored. While section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 does not state that notice
of dishonor be in writing, taken in conjunction, however, with section
3 of the law, i.e., “that where there are no sufficient funds in or credit
with such drawee bank, such fact shall always be explicitly stated in
the notice of dishonor or refusal,” a mere oral notice or demand to pay
would be insufficient for conviction under the law. The written notice
of dishonor may be sent to the drawer by the drawee bank, the holder
of the check, or the offended party, either by personal delivery or by
registered mail. (Emilia Lim vs. Mindanao Wines & Liquor
Galleria, G.R. No. 175851)
As such, the prosecution nevertheless miserably failed to prove one

essential element that consummates the crime of BP 22, i.e., the fact
of dishonor of the two subject checks. It noted that other than the
checks, no bank representative testified about presentment and
dishonor. The testimony of the prosecution’s sole witness, Princess
Intan, accountant and officer-in-charge of ABC Textile Co. merely proves
that a sale was perfected between the parties but nevertheless, insufficient
to prove all the elements of the offense to warrant conviction.
The elements of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 must concur before one

can be convicted of this offense. Since there is insufficient proof that
3|Trial Memorandum
accused received notice of dishonor, the presumption that she had
knowledge of insufficiency of funds cannot arise. Because of this, the
accused should be acquitted in the instant case. It is very clear that if
anything liability of the accused is only civil in nature, that is, the
payment of the face value of the subject checks with interest thereon
at the legal rate of interest computed from default, that is, from the
date of judicial or extrajudicial demand, until fully paid.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed

unto this Honorable Court to order DISMISS the instant case for
for failure to prove the facts charged against the accused.
Other reliefs and remedies, just and equitable, are likewise

prayed for.
Respectfully submitted, Tacloban City, Philippines, 15th day of

July, 2018.
Atty. Nicholas Young

Counsel for the Accused
Young & Khoo Law Offices
XYZ Bldg. Real St., Tacloban City
Attys. Roll No. 12345/ 1-1-06
PTR No. 12345/1-03-18, Tacloban City
IBP O.R. NO. 7654321/01-01-18,Tacloban Chapter
MCLE COMPLIANCE NO.: V-0001111/01-01-2018
Phone No: 09161234567
Copy furnished thru personal service:
Astrid Leong
Assistant City Prosecutor
Office of the City Prosecutor
Tacloban City
4|Trial Memorandum

Memorandum

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorandum

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorandum

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

8TH JUDICIAL REGION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Criminal Case No. 2018-456

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ACCUSED

The accused, Rachel Chu, through the undersigned counsel,

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Ms. Rachel Chu, sole proprietor of JCMA Fashion Atelier is

That on or about the 15th day of January 2018, in the City of

The pivotal issue for resolution in this case is whether the

To sustain conviction for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the

1. The making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for

2. The knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time

3. The dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency

In a line of cases, the Supreme Court has emphasized the

Absent proof that the accused received written notice of dishonor,

As such, the prosecution nevertheless miserably failed to prove one

The elements of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 must concur before one

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed

Other reliefs and remedies, just and equitable, are likewise

Respectfully submitted, Tacloban City, Philippines, 15th day of

Atty. Nicholas Young

Copy furnished thru personal service:

You might also like