Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 45 views

    Resolution: Republic of The Philippines Department of Justice Office of The City Prosecutor Baguio City

    Uploaded by

    Sui Juris
    1) Jennica Segundo filed a complaint against Brenda Villacorta for violating the Anti-Bouncing Check Law (B.P. 22) by issuing a check for 2.8 million pesos that was later dishonored due to a closed account. 2) The prosecutor found probable cause that Villacorta committed a B.P. 22 violation by issuing the check knowing that the account was closed, and failing to make good on the check within 5 days of receiving notice of dishonor. 3) The issuance of a worthless check that circulates in public order is the gravamen of the B.P. 22 offense, not the non-payment of debt, so there is

    Copyright:

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

    Resolution: Republic of The Philippines Department of Justice Office of The City Prosecutor Baguio City

    Uploaded by

    Sui Juris
    45 views5 pages
    1) Jennica Segundo filed a complaint against Brenda Villacorta for violating the Anti-Bouncing Check Law (B.P. 22) by issuing a check for 2.8 million pesos that was later dishonored due to a closed account. 2) The prosecutor found probable cause that Villacorta committed a B.P. 22 violation by issuing the check knowing that the account was closed, and failing to make good on the check within 5 days of receiving notice of dishonor. 3) The issuance of a worthless check that circulates in public order is the gravamen of the B.P. 22 offense, not the non-payment of debt, so there is

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Prosecutor_s Resolution.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Jennica Segundo filed a complaint against Brenda Villacorta for violating the Anti-Bouncing Check Law (B.P. 22) by issuing a check for 2.8 million pesos that was later dishonored due to a closed account. 2) The prosecutor found probable cause that Villacorta committed a B.P. 22 violation by issuing the check knowing that the account was closed, and failing to make good on the check within 5 days of receiving notice of dishonor. 3) The issuance of a worthless check that circulates in public order is the gravamen of the B.P. 22 offense, not the non-payment of debt, so there is

    Copyright:

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

    Resolution: Republic of The Philippines Department of Justice Office of The City Prosecutor Baguio City

    Uploaded by

    Sui Juris
    1) Jennica Segundo filed a complaint against Brenda Villacorta for violating the Anti-Bouncing Check Law (B.P. 22) by issuing a check for 2.8 million pesos that was later dishonored due to a closed account. 2) The prosecutor found probable cause that Villacorta committed a B.P. 22 violation by issuing the check knowing that the account was closed, and failing to make good on the check within 5 days of receiving notice of dishonor. 3) The issuance of a worthless check that circulates in public order is the gravamen of the B.P. 22 offense, not the non-payment of debt, so there is

    Copyright:

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

    Republic of the Philippines

    Department of Justice
    OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
    Baguio City

    JENNICA SEGUNDO, Respondent.


    Complainant,

    NPS. No. 1-27-INV-14000


    -versus-

    BRENDA Q. VILLACORTA, FOR: VIOLATION OF B.P. 22

    x----------------------------x

    RESOLUTION

    Complainant JENNICA SEGUNDO charges respondent BRENDA


    VILLACORTA with Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. Blg. 22)
    otherwise known as the Anti- Bouncing Check Law.

    In support of her complaint-affidavit, the complainant attached the


    following documents:

    1. ANNEX "A", Promissory Note containing the loan agreement;


    2. ANNEX "B", BPI Check No. 0029859 dated September 10,
    2018;
    3. ANNEX "C", Demand Letter and Notice of Dishonor of BPI
    Check No. 0029859, dated September 18, 2018
    4. ANNEX "D", envelope;
    5. ANNEX "E", Registry Return Receipt
    6. ANNEX "F", final demand letter; and
    6. ANNEX "G", deposit slip;

    1
    STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

    In the Complaint-Affidavit executed by the complainant, she averred


    that on September 8, 2018, at the office of the respondent at Unit 23
    Maharlika Bldg, Session Road, Baguio City, a BPI Check in the amount of
    Two Million Eight Hundred Thousand Pesos (P 2,800,000.00) was issued to
    her. The check was issued as payment for the debt contracted by respondent
    from complainant on August 15, 2017. However, respondent advised the
    complainant that the latter could encash the check only after 2 days or on
    September 10, 2018. Complainant then heeded to respondent's advise and
    went to BPI Abanao Branch on September 10, 2018.

    However, upon presentment of the check, it was dishonored by reason


    of "Closed Account" on the next day, September 11, 2018. Complainant
    then sent a Notice of Dishonor on September 18, 2018 through Katrina
    Reyes. Such notice was tendered personally by Katrina Reyes at the
    respondent's office at Unit 23 Maharlika Bldg, Session Road, Baguio City
    but she refused to receive it. Hence, on September 19, 2018, Katrina Reyes
    sent the demand letter and notice of dishonor through registered mail.

    On February 6, 2019, complainant decided to file a complaint-


    affidavit charging respondent for violation of BP Blg. 22.

    THE ISSUE

    Whether or not there is probable cause for a violation of B.P. Blg. 22


    against respondent Brenda Villacorta.

    ANALYSES, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    To be liable for violation of B.P. 22, the following essential elements


    must be present: (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

    2
    with the drawee 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 creditor dishonor for the same reason had
    not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.

    Based on the facts presented in the instant case, the alleged act
    committed by the respondent indisputably falls within the purview of a
    violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Respondent issued a check for the payment of her
    loan in favor of complainant; she knew that at the time she issued such
    check, her account is already closed; and upon presentment by complainant
    of the check , it was dishonored.

    Moreover, in the case of Resterio vs. People of the Philippines, it was


    ruled that the notice of dishonor to be given to the drawer, maker, or issuer
    should be written. Here, the complainant, sent the demand letter and a copy
    of the dishonored check through Katrina Reyes which was tendered to
    respondent but refused to receive it. Thereafter, Katrina Reyes sent the
    demand letter and notice of dishonor through registered mail to respondent's
    office at Unit 23 Maharlika Bldg, Session Road, Baguio City, as evidenced
    by the registry return card and Katrina Reyes' judicial affidavit.

    In the same case, it was held that the giving of the written notice of
    dishonor does not only supply the proof for the second element arising from
    the presumption of knowledge the law puts up but also affords the offender
    due process. The law thereby allows the offender to avoid prosecution if she
    pays the holder of the check the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements
    for the payment in full of the check by the drawee within five banking days
    from receipt of the written notice that the check had not been paid.

    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 (90) days from the date of 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)

    3
    banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the
    drawee.

    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.

    Here, respondent did not make good the check within five banking
    days from receipt of the demand particularly on November 15, 2019, as
    shown in the registry return card.

    As held in the case of Medalla vs. Laxa, the Supreme Court held that
    The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. 22 is the act of making and
    issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation
    for payment. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law
    punishes. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his
    debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the
    making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Because of its
    deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by law.
    The law punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an offense
    against public order.

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, we find that there is probable


    cause for Violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against the herein respondent, BRENDA
    VILLACORTA, for which she is charged under the information attached.

    4
    Baguio City, Philippines, February 6, 2019.

    CHELSEA DE LA ROSA
    OFFICER-IN-CHARGE / Assistant City
    Prosecutor
    Roll No. 525655
    IBP Lifetime No. 036886
    MCLE No. 451684, January 2019

    Copy Furnished:

    By personal service

    BRENDA VILLACORTA
    JENNICA SEGUNDO

    You might also like