Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    Alburo

    Uploaded by

    Grise Sakul
    The petitioner was charged with violating BP 22 for issuing four postdated checks that eventually bounced to pay for a property purchase. While it was proven that the petitioner issued the checks and the checks were dishonored, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner had knowledge that there were insufficient funds when the checks were issued. Specifically, the prosecution did not present evidence that the petitioner received the required notices of dishonor from the bank informing her of the bounced checks. As such, the Court ruled the petitioner could not be convicted of violating BP 22 due to the failure to prove the essential element of knowledge of insufficient funds.

    Copyright:

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

    Alburo

    Uploaded by

    Grise Sakul
    13 views2 pages
    The petitioner was charged with violating BP 22 for issuing four postdated checks that eventually bounced to pay for a property purchase. While it was proven that the petitioner issued the checks and the checks were dishonored, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner had knowledge that there were insufficient funds when the checks were issued. Specifically, the prosecution did not present evidence that the petitioner received the required notices of dishonor from the bank informing her of the bounced checks. As such, the Court ruled the petitioner could not be convicted of violating BP 22 due to the failure to prove the essential element of knowledge of insufficient funds.

    Original Description:

    August 15, 2016

    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 petitioner was charged with violating BP 22 for issuing four postdated checks that eventually bounced to pay for a property purchase. While it was proven that the petitioner issued the checks and the checks were dishonored, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner had knowledge that there were insufficient funds when the checks were issued. Specifically, the prosecution did not present evidence that the petitioner received the required notices of dishonor from the bank informing her of the bounced checks. As such, the Court ruled the petitioner could not be convicted of violating BP 22 due to the failure to prove the essential element of knowledge of insufficient funds.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    13 views2 pages

    Alburo

    Uploaded by

    Grise Sakul
    The petitioner was charged with violating BP 22 for issuing four postdated checks that eventually bounced to pay for a property purchase. While it was proven that the petitioner issued the checks and the checks were dishonored, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner had knowledge that there were insufficient funds when the checks were issued. Specifically, the prosecution did not present evidence that the petitioner received the required notices of dishonor from the bank informing her of the bounced checks. As such, the Court ruled the petitioner could not be convicted of violating BP 22 due to the failure to prove the essential element of knowledge of insufficient funds.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Alburo Vs People of the Philippines, 800 SCRA 247, G.R. No.

    196289, August 15, 2016

    Paralta, J.

    Facts:
    Petitioner and her husband bought a house and lot from petitioner's sister-in-law, Elsa Alburo-
    Walter, who is married to James Walter, through Aurelio Tapang in his capacity as attorney-in-
    fact of Elsa and James Walter.Petitioner and her husband made a partial payment of Twenty-
    One Thousand U.S. Dollars ($21,000.00) and the remaining balance has been paid through four
    (4) postdated checks issued by petitioner which eventually bounced. The petitioner was
    charged for the violation of BP 22 by willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously draw and issue to the
    complainant a check well-knowing that she has no sufficient funds in the bank, which check
    when presented for payment was dishonored for reason of "DRAWN AGAINST INSUFFICIENT
    FUNDS," and demands notwithstanding for more than five (5) days from notice of dishonor, the
    accused failed and refused, and still fails and refuses to redeem the said check. She was
    consequently found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the RTC. The CA denied the petitioner’s
    motion for reconsideration, hence this petition.

    Issue:
    Whether or not CA erred in not considering the meritorious ground raised by the petitioner,
    stating that the prosecution failed to prove:
    1. the second element of the crime charged;
    2. she had knowledge when she issued the subject checks; and (3) she does not
    have sufficient funds for payment thereof.

    Ruling:
    The Court found that the petition is meritorious, 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.

    There is no dispute that the first and the third elements are present in this case. It was proven
    that petitioner issued the subject Landbank checks in favor of Aurelio Tapang as payment for
    the balance of the purchase of the house and lot owned by Elsa Alburo-Walter and when
    presented for payment, the same checks were dishonored for the reason of being drawn
    against insufficient funds.
    The remaining issue is whether or not the second element is present.

    A perusal of the records of the case, shows the absence of any indication that petitioner
    received the notices of dishonor allegedly sent by Landbank. The absence of proof that
    petitioner received any notice informing her of the fact that her checks were dishonored and
    giving her five banking days within which to make arrangements for payment of the said checks
    prevents the application of the disputable presumption that she had knowledge of the
    insufficiency of her funds at the time she issued the checks

    Anent the demand letter sent through registered mail, the same was not proven beyond
    reasonable doubt that petitioner received the same. Although the Registry Return Card shows
    that the letter was received and signed for by a Jennifer Mendoza who identified herself as a
    house helper of petitioner, it was not proven that the same person is a duly authorized agent of
    the addressee or the petitioner. For notice by mail, it must appear that the same was served on
    the addressee or a duly authorized agent of the addressee.

    Thus, there being no clear showing that petitioner actually knew of the dishonor of her checks,
    this Court cannot with moral certainty convict her of violation of B.P. 22. The failure of the
    prosecution to prove that petitioner was given the requisite notice of dishonor is a clear ground
    for her acquittal.

    You might also like