Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 259 views

    BETTY KING, Petitioner, vs. People of The Philippines, Respondent. G.R. No. 131540 December 2, 1999

    Uploaded by

    Cora Novus
    betty

    Copyright:

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

    BETTY KING, Petitioner, vs. People of The Philippines, Respondent. G.R. No. 131540 December 2, 1999

    Uploaded by

    Cora Novus
    259 views2 pages
    betty

    Original Title

    betty-king-vs-people

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    betty

    Copyright:

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

    BETTY KING, Petitioner, vs. People of The Philippines, Respondent. G.R. No. 131540 December 2, 1999

    Uploaded by

    Cora Novus
    betty

    Copyright:

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

    BETTY KING, petitioner,

    vs.
    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
    G.R. No. 131540 December 2, 1999

    Facts
    On several occasions in January, 1992, at Las Piñas, Metro Manila, Betty King discounted with
    complainant Ellen Fernandez several Equitable Bank checks post-dated from July 23 to 29, 1992
    in the total amount of P1, 070,000.00 in exchange for cash in the amount of P1, 000,000.00.
    When the checks were deposited for payment, they were dishonored by the drawee bank
    because they were drawn against an account without sufficient funds. Petitioner failed to make
    good checks despite demand. During the hearing on the merits of this case on September 17,
    1998, the prosecution offered in evidence its documentary proofs, which the petitioner admitted
    its genuineness and the due execution of the documents presented.
    As noted earlier, Betty King filed a Demurrer to Evidence without leave of court. In doing so,
    she waived her right to present evidence and submitted the case for judgment on the basis of
    the documentary exhibits adduced by the prosecution. In affirming the trial court, the Court of
    Appeals explained that the prosecution proved all the elements of the crime. The CA also
    pointed out that the failure of Betty King to sign the pretrial order was not fatal to the
    prosecution, because her conviction was based on the evidence presented during the trial.
    Ellen Fernandez sent Betty King a registered mail, informing the latter that the checks had been
    dishonored. But the records show that petitioner did not receive it. In fact, Postmaster Wilfredo
    Ulibarri’s letter addressed to complainant’s counsel certified that the subject registered mail was
    returned to sender on September 22, 1992.
    Notwithstanding the clear import of the postmaster's certification, the prosecution failed to
    adduce any other proof that petitioner received the post office notice but unjustifiably refused
    to claim the registered mail. It is possible that the drawee bank sent petitioner a notice of
    dishonor, but the prosecution did not present evidence that the bank did send it, or that
    petitioner actually received it. It was also possible that she was trying to flee from complainant
    by staying in different address. Speculations and possibilities, however, cannot take the place of
    proof. Conviction must rest on proof beyond reasonable doubt. Clearly, the evidence on hand
    demonstrates the indelible fact that petitioner did not receive notice that the checks had been
    dishonored. Necessarily, the presumption that she knew of the insufficiency of funds cannot
    arise.

    Issue
    Whether or not the trial court and the Court of Appeals gravely erred in admitting in evidence
    all the documentary evidence of the prosecution though their due execution and genuineness
    were not duly established in evidence pursuant to the provisions of the Rules of Court and
    prevailing jurisprudence.
    Ruling
    No. The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not err in taking cognizance of the
    said documentary evidence. It further ruled that Fule v. Court of Appeals would not apply to the
    present controversy.
    While it is true that a pretrial agreement not signed by a party is inadmissible, however, the
    conviction of the petitioner was based not on that agreement but on the documents submitted
    during the trial, all of which were admitted without any objection from her counsel. During the
    hearing on September 17, 1993, the prosecution offered as evidence the dishonored checks,
    the return check tickets addressed to the private complainant, the notice from complainant
    addressed to petitioner that the checks had been dishonored, and the postmaster's letter that
    the notice had been returned to sender, all of which were admitted without any objection from
    her counsel.

    You might also like