Campos vs. People

CAMPOS VS. PEOPLE GR 187401 SEPTEMBER 17, 2014

 

DOCTRINE: Mere presentation of registry return receipts that cover registered mail was not sufficient to establish that written notices of dishonor had been sent to or served on issuers of checks. The authentication by affidavit of the mailers was necessary in order for service by registered mail to be regarded as clear proof of the giving of notices of dishonor and to predicate the existence of the second element of the offense.

FACTS  March 17, 1995 - Rosario Campos obtained a loan, payable on installments from respondent First Women’s Credit Corporation (FWCC) worth P50K.  Campos issued several postdated checks to cover the agreed installment payments.  Fourteen of these checks were drawn from her BPI Current Account were dishonored. Checks were declared drawn against a closed account.  Campos failed to satisfy her outstanding obligation so she was charged with violations of BP 22.  She was tried in absentia for failure to attend court proceedings. MeTC: convicted of 14 counts of violation of BP 22. Sentenced to suffer 6 months imprisonment for each violation and to indemnify complainant P46K representing the total value of the checks plus legal interest. RTC and CA: upheld conviction. Campos’ arguments: crime’s element requiring her knowledge at the time of the check’s issuance that she did not have sufficient funds with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon presentment was not established by the prosecution. She denies having received a notice of dishonor from FWCC. She also invokes good faith as she allegedly made arrangements with FWCC for the payment. ISSUE: WON a demand letter that was sent through registered mail is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of BP 22 as to knowledge of fact of the dishonor of the subject checks RULING  Elements for violation of BP 22: (1) making/drawing/issuance of any check to apply for account or value; (2) knowledge of the maker/drawer/issuer, at the time of issue, that there no sufficient funds with the drawee bank for payment in full upon its presentment; and (2) dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or that the drawer, w/o any valid cause, ordered stop payment.  Presence of first and third elements is undisputed  Court has emphasized the importance of proof of receipt of such notice of  dishonor, although not as an element of the offense, but as a means to establish that the issuer of a check was aware of insufficiency of funds when he issued the check and the bank dishonored it, in relation to the second element of the offense and Section 2 of B.P. 22. Considering that the second element involves a state of mind which is difficult to establish, Section 2 of





B.P. 22 creates a presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds RTC and the CA affirmed the MeTC’s finding that the required notice of dishonor from FWCC was received by Campos Mere presentation of registry return receipts that cover registered mail was not sufficient to establish that written notices of dishonor had been sent to or served on issuers of checks. The authentication by affidavit of the mailers was necessary in order for service by registered mail to be regarded as clear proof of the giving of notices of dishonor and to predicate the existence of the second element of the offense Campos categorically declared in her petition that, “[she] has in her favor evidence to show that she was in good faith and indeed made arrangements for the payment of her obligations subsequently after the dishonor of the checks.” o Statement was a confirmation that she actually received the required notice of dishonor from FWCC. The evidence referred to in her statement were receipts dated January 13, 1996, February 29, 1996, April 22, 1998 and May 26, 1998 issued by FWCC to Campos for payments in various amounts ranging from P2,500.00 to P15,700.00. o Campos would not have entered into the alleged arrangements beginning January 1996 until May 1998 if she had not received a notice of dishonor from her creditor, and had no knowledge of the insufficiency of her funds with the bank and the dishonor of her checks. She failed to sufficiently disclose the terms of her alleged arrangement with FWCC, and to establish that the same had been fully complied with.