G.R. No. 131540 December 2, 1999
Betty King, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Betty King was charged with eleven counts of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law). The Informations alleged that in January 1992, she issued several postdated Equitable Bank checks to Eileen Fernandez, which were subsequently dishonored upon presentment for the reason “Account Closed.” It was further alleged that despite notice of dishonor, King failed to pay the amounts or make arrangements for payment within five banking days. After the prosecution presented its evidence, King filed a Demurrer to Evidence without leave of court, which the trial court denied. As she waived her right to present evidence, the trial court rendered a judgment of conviction, which the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The prosecution’s evidence primarily consisted of the dishonored checks and a demand letter sent via registered mail. The defense, through the demurrer, argued that the prosecution failed to prove an essential element of the crime: that King actually received notice of the dishonor of the checks. The prosecution relied on a return receipt for the registered demand letter, but this receipt was not offered as evidence during the formal offer of exhibits. The only proof offered was the demand letter itself and the registry receipt, but not the return card that would prove its receipt by the addressee.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of violation of BP 22, particularly the element of notice of dishonor to the accused.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the Court of Appeals and ACQUITTED Betty King. The Court held that for a conviction under BP 22, the prosecution must prove not only that the accused issued a check that was subsequently dishonored, but also that the accused was actually notified in writing of the fact of dishonor and failed, within five banking days from receipt thereof, to pay the holder the amount due or make arrangements for its payment. Notice of dishonor is a substantive element of the offense. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove that King received the notice. The registry return receipt, which would have evidenced such receipt, was not formally offered in evidence. The Court emphasized that while a presumption of receipt arises from evidence of a properly sent letter, this presumption is disputable and must be proven. Here, the prosecution did not present the return card or any other evidence to show that the notice was actually received by King. The mere mailing of a demand letter is insufficient; its receipt must be proven. Since the prosecution failed to establish this crucial element, the legal presumption that the issuer knew of the insufficiency of funds at the time of issuance could not arise. Penal statutes must be construed strictly against the State, and the prosecution’s case must stand on the strength of its own evidence. The failure to prove receipt of notice of dishonor warranted acquittal.