GR 149695; (April, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 149695 ; April 28, 2004
WILLY G. SIA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Willy G. Sia, as lessee, entered into an 18-month lease agreement with Consolidated Orient Leasing and Finance Corporation (COLF) for construction equipment. As security, Sia deposited ₱216,250.00 and issued 18 postdated checks for the monthly rental of ₱44,980.00. Checks for July to December 1982 were honored. However, Check No. 233533, postdated January 4, 1983, was dishonored for “insufficient funds.” COLF informed Sia and requested replacement. Subsequently, Check No. 233534, postdated March 4, 1983, was also dishonored for “account closed.” COLF then terminated the lease agreement on March 10, 1983. Despite termination, COLF deposited another check for April 1983, which was also dishonored. COLF did not send formal notices of dishonor for these checks to Sia. Sia was prosecuted and convicted for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22).
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner’s conviction for violation of B.P. 22 should be upheld despite the absence of a notice of dishonor sent to him.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Sia. The Court emphasized that for a prosecution under B.P. 22 to succeed, the prosecution must prove not only that the accused issued a check that was subsequently dishonored, but also that the accused was given notice of dishonor and failed to pay the amount or make arrangements for payment within five banking days from receipt thereof. The sending of a notice of dishonor is a mandatory requirement; it is not merely a procedural formality but an essential part of the actus reus of the offense. Its purpose is to afford the drawer an opportunity to satisfy the check and avoid criminal liability.
In this case, the prosecution failed to prove that COLF sent Sia the requisite notices of dishonor for the subject checks. The letters sent by COLF merely informed Sia of the dishonor and requested replacement or payment, but these communications were made prior to the lease termination and did not constitute the formal notice of dishonor required by the law to trigger the 5-day period for making arrangements for payment. The absence of this crucial notice deprived Sia of the opportunity to avert prosecution. Consequently, an essential element of the offense was not established, warranting acquittal. The Court clarified that knowledge of insufficiency of funds at the time of issuance is not the sole determinative factor; the drawer must be duly notified of the dishonor to be able to exercise the right to pay.