Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 109 views

    Svendsen v. People

    Uploaded by

    heinnah
    Cristina loaned petitioner P200,000 with 10% monthly interest. When the balance reached P380,000, petitioner issued Cristina a postdated check for P160,000 which bounced due to insufficient funds. Cristina sent a demand letter which there is no proof petitioner received. While petitioner issued the bounced check, the prosecution failed to prove he knew there were insufficient funds at the time. Therefore, petitioner was found not guilty of violating the B.P. Blg. 22. However, petitioner is still civilly liable to compensate Cristina for personal injury from the bounced check.

    Copyright:

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

    Svendsen v. People

    Uploaded by

    heinnah
    109 views2 pages
    Cristina loaned petitioner P200,000 with 10% monthly interest. When the balance reached P380,000, petitioner issued Cristina a postdated check for P160,000 which bounced due to insufficient funds. Cristina sent a demand letter which there is no proof petitioner received. While petitioner issued the bounced check, the prosecution failed to prove he knew there were insufficient funds at the time. Therefore, petitioner was found not guilty of violating the B.P. Blg. 22. However, petitioner is still civilly liable to compensate Cristina for personal injury from the bounced check.

    Original Description:

    Svendsen v. People Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Cristina loaned petitioner P200,000 with 10% monthly interest. When the balance reached P380,000, petitioner issued Cristina a postdated check for P160,000 which bounced due to insufficient funds. Cristina sent a demand letter which there is no proof petitioner received. While petitioner issued the bounced check, the prosecution failed to prove he knew there were insufficient funds at the time. Therefore, petitioner was found not guilty of violating the B.P. Blg. 22. However, petitioner is still civilly liable to compensate Cristina for personal injury from the bounced check.

    Copyright:

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

    Svendsen v. People

    Uploaded by

    heinnah
    Cristina loaned petitioner P200,000 with 10% monthly interest. When the balance reached P380,000, petitioner issued Cristina a postdated check for P160,000 which bounced due to insufficient funds. Cristina sent a demand letter which there is no proof petitioner received. While petitioner issued the bounced check, the prosecution failed to prove he knew there were insufficient funds at the time. Therefore, petitioner was found not guilty of violating the B.P. Blg. 22. However, petitioner is still civilly liable to compensate Cristina for personal injury from the bounced check.

    Copyright:

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

    Svendsen v.

    People
    G.R. No. 175381, February 26, 2008

    Facts:

    Cristina Reyes (Cristina) extended a loan to petitioner in the amount of P200,000, to


    bear interest at 10% a month. After petitioner had partially paid his obligation, he
    failed to settle the balance thereof which had reached P380,000 inclusive of
    interest.

    Cristina thus filed a collection suit against petitioner, which was eventually settled
    when petitioner paid her P200,000 and issued in her favor an International
    Exchange Bank check postdated February 2, 1999 (the check) in the amount of
    P160,000 representing interest. The check was co-signed by one Wilhelm Bolton.

    When the check was presented for payment on February 9, 1999, it was dishonored
    for having been Drawn Against Insufficient Funds (DAIF). Cristina, through counsel,
    thus sent a letter to petitioner by registered mail informing him that the check was
    dishonored by the drawee bank, and demanding that he make it good within five (5)
    days from receipt thereof. No settlement having been made by petitioner,
    an Information for violation of BP 22 was filed against the two.

    Issue:

    Whether petitioner guilty of a violation of BP 22.

    Ruling:

    No. For petitioner 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
    thedrawee 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.

    Petitioner admits having issued the postdated check to Cristina. The check,
    however, was dishonored when deposited for payment in Banco de Oro due to DAIF.
    Hence, the first and the third elements obtain in the case.

    The evidence for the prosecution failed to prove the second element. While the
    registry receipt, which is said to cover the letter-notice of dishonor and of demand
    sent to petitioner, was presented, there is no proof that he or a duly authorized
    agent received the same. Receipts for registered letters including return receipts do
    not themselves prove receipt; they must be properly authenticated to serve as proof
    of receipt of the letters.

    Petitioner is civilly liable, however. For in a criminal case, the social injury is sought
    to be repaired through the imposition of the corresponding penalty, whereas with
    respect to the personal injury of the victim, it is sought to be compensated through
    indemnity, which is civil in nature.

    You might also like