G.R. No. 140078, December 9, 2004
ANGELINA ZABALA ALONTO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Angelina Zabala Alonto was charged with three counts of violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22). The charges stemmed from three checks, each for P25,000, issued to private complainant Violeta Tizon as payment for purchased jewelry. The checks (BPI Check Nos. 831256, 831257, and 831258) were dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or because the account was closed. Despite receiving notices of dishonor, Alonto failed to make arrangements for payment within five banking days. The Regional Trial Court found her guilty on all counts, imposing imprisonment and fines, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Alonto appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to prove her receipt of the notices of dishonor, a requisite under B.P. 22. She claimed the demand letters were sent to an incorrect address. The prosecution presented evidence, including registry return receipts, to prove the notices were sent to her residence at No. 11 Road 14, Project 6, Quezon City, which was the address she provided to the bank and used in her transactions with Tizon.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt all elements of violation of B.P. 22, particularly the element of notice of dishonor to the petitioner.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of B.P. 22 were established. The law requires that the accused must have knowledge of the insufficiency of funds at the time of issuing the check, and that the drawee bank dishonors it for such reason. Crucially, the issuer must also fail to pay the holder the amount of the check or make arrangements for its payment within five banking days after receiving notice of dishonor.
The Court found the evidence of notice sufficient. The prosecution presented the dishonored checks, the bank’s formal notice of dishonor, and the registry return receipts (Exhibits G-1, H-1, I-1) showing the notices were sent via registered mail to Alonto’s address at No. 11 Road 14, Project 6, Quezon City. This address was verified as her residence, as it was the address she gave to the bank where she opened the account and the place where Tizon delivered the jewelry. The Court ruled that there is a presumption of fact that a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of mail. Since Alonto failed to rebut this presumption and did not prove the address was incorrect, her denial of receipt was insufficient to overturn the conviction. The factual findings of the lower courts, which found the evidence of notice credible, are binding.