G.R. No. 182301 ; January 31, 2011
JAIME ALFEREZ, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and PINGPING CO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jaime Alferez purchased construction materials from Cebu ABC Sales Commercial and issued three checks totaling ₱830,998.40 as payment. The checks were dishonored for being drawn against a closed account. He was charged with three counts of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22). During trial, the prosecution presented private complainant Pingping Co and offered documentary evidence, including the dishonored checks, a demand letter dated July 7, 1994, a registry receipt, and a registry return receipt. Instead of presenting evidence, Alferez filed a Demurrer to Evidence without leave of court, arguing the prosecution failed to prove he received the notice of dishonor. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) denied the demurrer, found him guilty, and sentenced him to pay a fine equal to the check amounts. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to imprisonment for six months per count. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed his subsequent petition, sustaining the conviction. The CA held that the registry receipt and return card sufficiently proved receipt of the notice, and that by filing a demurrer without leave, he waived his right to present evidence.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Registry Receipt and Registry Return Receipt alone, without presenting the person who mailed/served the demand letter, constitute sufficient proof of notice of dishonor as required by B.P. 22.
2. Whether the filing of a Demurrer to Evidence without leave of court, subsequently denied, constitutes a waiver of the accused’s right to present evidence, including on the civil aspect.
3. Whether the penalty of imprisonment imposed by the RTC was proper.

RULING

1. On the Proof of Notice: The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the second element of B.P. 22—knowledge of insufficiency of funds. The presumption of such knowledge under Section 2 of B.P. 22 arises only upon proof that the issuer received a notice of dishonor and, within five banking days, failed to pay or make arrangements for payment. Mere presentation of a registry receipt and a registry return receipt is insufficient. The return card must be authenticated to serve as proof of receipt. The prosecution did not authenticate the return receipt or present the person who mailed the notice. Therefore, there was insufficient proof that Alferez received the notice of dishonor.
2. On the Demurrer and Waiver of Right to Present Evidence: The Court held that the filing of a demurrer to evidence without leave of court results in a waiver of the right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the prosecution’s evidence. This is a consequence of the rule under Section 15, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court. Thus, Alferez validly waived his right to present evidence.
3. On the Penalty: Given the acquittal on the criminal charge, the issue of the propriety of the penalty of imprisonment became moot.
DISPOSITIVE:
The Supreme Court ACQUITTED petitioner Jaime Alferez of the charges for violation of B.P. 22 on the ground of reasonable doubt due to failure of the prosecution to prove receipt of the notice of dishonor. The Court, however, upheld his civil liability for the value of the checks, amounting to ₱830,998.40, pursuant to Section 1(b), Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, as the acquittal was based on reasonable doubt, not a declaration that the facts from which the civil liability arose did not exist.