LEGAL RESEARCH

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
MYRNA M. REY, Petitioner,
G.R. NO. 533890
vs.
September 30, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _/
DECISION
CRUZ, J.:
Notice of dishonour required by the Batas Pambansa Bilang
22 to be given to the drawer, issuer or maker of check is
indispensable. It should be written in form. A mere oral
notice or demand letter would not suffice, thus lack of
written notice of dishonour is fatal for the prosecution.
The petitioner was facing raps before the Municipal Trial
Court in Cities for issuing bouncing check worth P1.2
million. Charged for violation of the Batas Pambansa Bilang
22, otherwise known as An Act Penalizing the Making or
Drawing and Issuance of a Check without Sufficient Funds
or Credit and for Other Purposes is Myrna M. Rey of Blk. 3,
Lot 28, Toscana Subdivision, Puan, Davao City.
Prosecutor Joseph Mamburam found probable cause to
charge Rey based on the complaint of a certain private
respondent Abella Dacudao, of legal age, and a transient
resident of Sampaguita Tourist Inn, Mt. Apo St. Dacudao in
her affidavit, said that on March 15, 2013, the accused
issued a Metrobank check amounting to P1.2 million with
serial number 0141349 as payment. When the complainant
encashed the check at the bank, it was dishonoured as the

account was closed. Dacudao tried to contact Rey but the

latter cannot be reached anymore. Dacudao sought the
assistance of her legal counsel J. Melchor B. Quitain, Jr. On
April 15, 2013, Quitain sent a request letter to the
petitioners address demanding the latter to settle the check
within 5 days. The person who sent the letter identified as
Michael Sarmiento, in his affidavit, said he personally
delivered the letter to the petitioner yet the latter refused to
acknowledge receipt of the letter. Dacudao continued to
contact Rey but still the latter didnt respond. Thus, charges
were filed.
For violation of a Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, the following
essential elements must be proved by the Prosecution:
(1)
Making, drawing, and issuing any check to apply
to account or for value;
(2)
Knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at
the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the
check in full upon its presentment;
(3)
Subsequent dishonour of the check by the bank
for insufficiency of funds or credit, or dishonour of the
check for the same reason had not the drawer, without
any valid cause, order the bank to stop payment.
(Leonor D. Boado, Notes and Cases on the Revised
Penal Code (Books 1& 2)and Special Penal Laws, pp.
916-917, Rex Bookstore, 2012 ed.)
According to the petitioner, not all elements were attendant.
She did not have knowledge about the insufficiency of her
funds, that there was no more balance in her account and
thus it was closed.
Private respondent was not persuaded by the contentions of
the petitioner. If she does not have knowledge about the
insufficiency of funds and if she is innocent, she would not
have ignored her persistent calls and messages and the
demand letter sent by the legal counsel of the respondent.
To constitute knowledge of insufficiency of funds, the
following requisites must be proved by the Prosecution:
(1)
The check is presented to the bank within 90
days from the date of the check;
(2)
The drawer or maker receives notice that such
check has not been paid been paid by the bank; and

(3)
The drawer or maker fails to pay the holder of the
check the amount due thereon, or make arrangements
for payment in full within five banking days after
receiving notice that such check has not been paid by
the drawee. (Leonor D. Boado, Notes and Cases on the
Revised Penal Code (Books 1& 2) and Special Penal
Laws, p. 918, Rex Bookstore, 2012 ed.)
The petitioner argues that she did not receive any notice of
dishonour from the bank. This was the reason why she
ignored the private respondents calls, messages, and the
demand letter of the legal counsel.
The notice of dishonour must be sent to the maker or
drawee after the dishonour of the check. The term notice of
dishonour denotes that a check has been presented for
payment and was subsequently dishonoured by the drawee
bank. This means that the check must necessarily be due
and demandable because only a check that has become due
can be presented for payment and subsequently
dishonoured. A postdated check cannot be dishonoured if
presented for payment before its due date. Hence, demand
letter sent before the checks maturity date is not sufficient
notice of dishonour.
In Resterio vs People of the Philippines, Section 2 of B.P.
Blg. 22 does not state that the 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 appear to be insufficient
for conviction under the law. The Court is convinced that
both the spirit and letter of the Bouncing Checks Law would
require for the act to be punished thereunder not only that
the accused issued a check that is dishonored, but that
likewise the accused has actually been notified in writing of
the fact of dishonor. This was also stated in the case of
Domagsang vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals. (Resterio
vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 177438, September
24, 2012)
Petitioner also states the ruling in the case of Yu Oh vs. CA:

It is necessary that the prosecution prove that the issuer

had received a notice of dishonor. Since service of notice is
an issue, the person alleging that the notice was served
must prove the fact of service. Basic also is the doctrine
that in criminal cases, the quantum of proof required is
proof beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, for cases of B.P. Blg.
22 there should be clear proof of notice.
Notice of dishonor is dispensable in this case considering
that the cause of the dishonor of the checks was "Account
Closed" and therefore, petitioner already knew that the
checks will bounce anyway. This argument has no merit.
The Court has decided numerous cases where checks were
dishonored for the reason, "Account Closed" and we have
explicitly held in said cases that "it is essential for the
maker or drawer to be notified of the dishonor of her check,
so she could pay the value thereof or make arrangements
for its payment within the period prescribed by law" and
omission or neglect on the part of the prosecution to prove
that the accused received such notice of dishonor is fatal to
its cause. (Yu Oh vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125297,
June 6, 2003)
The lack of written notice of dishonour is fatal. The court
agrees with the petitioner.
The prosecution failed to show the proof of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt of the petitioner in violation of Batas
Pambansa Bilang 22 for issuing to Dacudao an unfunded
Metrobank check with serial number 0141349 with the
amount of P1.2 million. According to Section 2 of Rule 133,
Rules of Court, the accused is entitled to an acquittal,
unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt, which
does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding
possibility of error, produces absolute certainty; only a
moral certainty is required, or that degree of proof that
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. This is the
required quantum, firstly, because the accused is presumed
to be innocent until the contrary is proved, and, secondly,
because of the inequality of the position in which the
accused finds herself, with the State being arrayed against
her with its unlimited command of means, with counsel
usually of authority and capacity, who are regarded as
public officers, "and with an attitude of tranquil majesty
often in striking contrast to that of (the accused) engaged in
a perturbed and distracting struggle for liberty if not for

life. (Domagsang vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R.

No. 139292, December 5, 2000)
WHEREFORE, the Court ACQUITS the petitioner MYRNA
M. REY of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 as charged
for failure to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court orders MYRNA M. REY to pay ABELLA
DACUDAO the face value of P1.2 million.
SO ORDERED.
Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Reyes, J. B. L., Gutierrez David, and Paredes, JJ., concur.

KRISTINA R. GALIDO
LEGAL RESEARCH
LLB 1 EH401MC

THE MAROONBOOK

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MANUAL OF LEGAL CITATION

RULE
1.0.

Typefaces
Ex: See De Villata v Stanley, 32 Phil. 541

2.1.

General Rules for Punctuation and Abbreviation

Ex: During the period of martial law, searches and

seizures by the military of persons suspected to be engaged in
revolutionary activity were carried out by an Arrest, Search and
Seizure Order ( ASSO ) generally issued by the Minister of
National Defense.
2.2.

Abbreviating Source Names in Citations

Ex: RPC Revised Penal Code

2.3.

Geographical Terms
Ex: Phil - Philippines

2.4.

Months of the Year

Ex: Dec December

2.5.

Numbers

Ex: Each city with a population of at least 250 thousand,

or each province, shall have at least one representative.
3.1.

Introducing Authorities

Ex: For a discussion of electronic eavesdropping

situations which do not come under the privacy rule, see United
States v White, 401 US 745 (1971)
3.2.

Punctuation of Citation Sentences

Ex: Steuart & Bro v Bowles, 322 US 398, 404 (1944). See
also United States v Barrias, 11 Phil 327 (1908); United States v
Panlilio, 28 Phil 608 (1914).
3.3.

Order of Authority
Ex: N/A

3.4.

Explanatory Information

Ex: 201 SCRA 210, 214 (1991) citing 111 ALR 23

4.1.

General Information for Citing to Authorities

Ex: Sinco, Philippine Political Law 116 (11th ed 1962).

4.2.

Cases
Ex: Brinegar v United States, 338 US 160, 175 (1949).

4.3

Court Documents
Ex: N/A

4.4.

Periodicals
Ex: N/A

4.5.

Books and Treaties

Ex: Tanada & Carreon, Political Law of the Philippines,

374 375 (1961).
4.6.

Constitutions and Foundational Sources of Law

Ex: Phil Const of 1987 Art XVII, Sec 3.

4.7.

Statutes

Ex: Domestic Adoption Act of 1998, RA No 8552 (February

25, 1998).
4.8.

Legislative Materials
Ex: Civil Code of the Philippines, RA No 386 (August 30,

1950).
4.9.

Executive and Administrative Materials

Ex: 50 Fed Reg at 2530 (cited in note 23).

4.10. Rules of Practice

Ex: RRCP 12.
4.11. Treaties and Other International Agreements
Ex: Philippines Extradition Treaty with the United States,
8 PTS 987 (November 27, 1981).
4.12. Foreign Materials
Ex: Universal Declaration of Human Rights Art 25, Sec 1.

4.13. Internet Sources

Ex: The Maroonbook, The University of Chicago Law
Review, online at http://owl.english.purdue.edu (visited June 10,
2013).
4.14. Unpublished and Forthcoming Sources
Ex: Charles F. Floyd, Billboards, Aesthetics and the Police
Power, Journal of Economics and Sociology (forthcoming).
4.15. Other Sources
Ex: Blacks Law Dictionary 543 (West 5th ed 1979).