GR 163494; (August, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 163494 August 3, 2016
JESUSA T. DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Jesusa Dela Cruz was convicted for 23 counts of violating B.P. Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law). The case stemmed from business transactions where she issued post-dated checks to Ernesto Tan as payment for textile deliveries. The subject 23 replacement checks, all dated March 30, 1987 and drawn against Family Bank & Trust Co., were dishonored for the reason “Account Closed.” Tan sent a demand letter, but the amounts remained unpaid. After the prosecution rested its case, the defense sought several postponements for its presentation of evidence. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) eventually issued an order deeming the petitioner to have waived her right to present evidence due to her repeated failure to appear on scheduled hearing dates. The RTC then rendered a decision based on the prosecution’s evidence, finding her guilty and imposing imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) whether the petitioner was denied due process when she was deemed to have waived her right to present evidence; and (2) whether all elements of violation of B.P. Blg. 22, particularly the requirement of notice of dishonor, were duly proven.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition in part. On the procedural issue, the Court found that the petitioner was not validly declared to have waived her right to present evidence. The notice for the final hearing was sent to her old address and, crucially, was mailed only on August 3, 2000, which was one week after the scheduled July 27, 2000 hearing date. This constituted invalid notice. Consequently, the order deeming waiver was void, and the case was remanded to the RTC to allow the petitioner to present her evidence, including her claim of overpayment.
However, on the substantive issue of the elements of the crime, the Court held that the prosecution had sufficiently established a prima facie case for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. All elements were present: the checks were issued; they were subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for “Account Closed”; and the requisite notice of dishonor was proven. The demand letter sent by Tan, which the petitioner admitted receiving, served as the valid notice. The Court emphasized that the law only requires that the drawer be notified of the dishonor; it does not require the notice to be in a specific form or to come directly from the bank. Therefore, while the case was remanded for the reception of the defense’s evidence, the prima facie case stood. The Court also modified the penalty, applying prevailing jurisprudence and administrative circulars, by deleting the prison term and imposing a fine for each count, while affirming the civil liability for the face value of the checks.