GR 172573; (June, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 172573; June 19, 2008
RICARDO SUAREZ, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and A.H. SHOPPERS’ MART, INC., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Ricardo Suarez, owner of Suarez Commercial, opened a credit line with respondent A.H. Shoppers’ Mart, Inc. He issued two postdated checks as payment for purchased goods. Both checks were dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason “ACCOUNT CLOSED.” Shoppers’ Mart sent a demand letter to Suarez for payment, but he failed to settle the obligation. Consequently, two informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) were filed against him.
The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) found Suarez guilty. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) modified the decision, absolving him of criminal liability on constitutional grounds against imprisonment for debt but affirming his civil liability. The Court of Appeals reinstated the MTCC’s conviction. Suarez elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove an essential element: his knowledge of the insufficiency of funds at the time of issuance, as no notice of dishonor was proven to have been sent to and received by him.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the element of knowledge of insufficiency of funds to hold petitioner liable for violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
RULING
The Supreme Court ACQUITTED petitioner Ricardo Suarez. The Court emphasized that for a conviction under B.P. Blg. 22, the prosecution must prove: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of a check; (2) the maker’s knowledge at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds; and (3) subsequent dishonor of the check. Knowledge of insufficiency of funds is a crucial element. While the law creates a presumption of such knowledge from the dishonor of the check and the failure of the maker to pay or arrange for payment within five banking days after receiving notice, this presumption is contingent on proof that notice of dishonor was actually sent to and received by the maker.
The Court found that the prosecution’s sole witness, the collection manager of Shoppers’ Mart, failed to categorically testify that a notice of dishonor was sent to Suarez. Her testimony only established that a demand letter for payment was sent, which is not equivalent to the notice of dishonor required by the law to trigger the five-day period and the legal presumption. Without proof of receipt of such notice, the presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds does not arise. Consequently, the prosecution failed to establish an essential element of the offense, creating reasonable doubt. However, the Court affirmed petitioner’s civil liability for the value of the checks, which remains separate from the criminal action.