G.R. No. 196853 July 13, 2015
ROBERT CHUA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Robert Chua was charged with 54 counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) for issuing checks to private complainant Philip See that were dishonored for insufficient funds or against a closed account. The checks were issued pursuant to a rediscounting arrangement between the parties from 1992 to 1993. See filed a complaint on December 23, 1993, attaching a demand letter dated December 10, 1993. During trial, the prosecution offered a demand letter dated December 10, 1993 as evidence, but Chua objected, arguing it was a mere photocopy without proof of receipt. Later, the prosecution moved to reopen evidence to submit a demand letter dated November 30, 1993, which See allegedly found later. This November 30, 1993 letter bore Chua’s signature. The MeTC initially refused to take cognizance of the supplemental offer due to lack of conformity from the public prosecutor, but the letter was eventually marked as Exhibit “SSS.” Chua filed a Demurrer to Evidence, arguing lack of proper notice of dishonor, specifically that the December 10, 1993 letter was a photocopy without proof of receipt and the November 30, 1993 letter, while bearing his signature, lacked a date of receipt to reckon the five-day period under BP 22. The MeTC denied the demurrer, convicted Chua of 54 counts, and sentenced him to six months imprisonment per count plus restitution. The RTC affirmed the conviction. The Court of Appeals also affirmed, holding that the defense stipulated in open court to the existence and signature on the November 30, 1993 demand letter, estopping them from denying receipt, and that the dated letter created a presumption of receipt on its date.

ISSUE

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

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED the decisions of the lower courts, and ACQUITTED Robert Chua. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the second element of BP 22—that the issuer had knowledge of the insufficiency of funds at the time of issue—due to insufficient proof of a valid notice of dishonor. The demand letter dated December 10, 1993 was a mere photocopy without any proof that Chua received it. While the demand letter dated November 30, 1993 bore Chua’s signature, it did not indicate the date of its receipt. For the presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds to arise under Section 2 of BP 22, the issuer must have received a notice of dishonor and, within five banking days therefrom, failed to pay or make arrangements for payment. The date of receipt is crucial to reckon this five-day period. The mere date of the letter does not prove the date of its receipt. The defense’s stipulation in court regarding the existence of the letter and the signature did not constitute an admission of the date of receipt. Without proof of when Chua received the notice, the prosecution failed to establish that he was given the five-day period to make good the checks, and consequently, the presumption of knowledge did not arise. The element of knowledge of insufficiency of funds was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.