G.R. No. 177438; September 24, 2012
AMADA RESTERIO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Amada Resterio was charged with violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22) for issuing a ChinaBank check worth ₱50,000.00 to Bernardo Villadolid, which was dishonored upon presentment for the reason “ACCT. CLOSED.” The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) found her guilty, a decision affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA). Resterio contended that the check was not hers but was borrowed from a friend and issued merely as a collateral for a loan, not intended for encashment. She further argued that the prosecution failed to prove all elements of the crime, particularly the service of a written notice of dishonor.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt all essential elements for a violation of B.P. 22, specifically the element of notice of dishonor.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and acquitted Resterio. While the first two elements of B.P. 22 were present—the issuance of a check and knowledge of insufficient funds—the prosecution failed to prove the third element: that the drawer received a notice of dishonor and failed to pay within five banking days. The Court reiterated that the notice of dishonor required by B.P. 22 must be written. If served by registered mail, proof requires not only the registry return receipt but also the registry receipt itself and an authenticating affidavit from the person who mailed it. Here, the prosecution only presented the return receipt without the required affidavit or the personal testimony of the mailer. This omission created reasonable doubt as to whether the notice was actually sent and received. Consequently, Resterio’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, her civil liability for the check’s face value of ₱50,000.00, plus legal interest, remained enforceable.