G.R. No. 200090 ; March 6, 2013
ERLINDA C. SAN MATEO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Erlinda C. San Mateo issued eleven postdated checks, amounting to ₱134,275.00, to ITSP International, Inc. as partial payment for yarns. Upon maturity, she repeatedly requested the payee, through its Vice-President Ravin Sehwani, to defer deposit due to lack of funds, to which Sehwani acceded. Eventually, the checks were presented. One was dishonored for insufficiency of funds, another was dishonored due to a stop payment order, and the remaining nine were dishonored because the account was already closed. Sehwani sent a demand letter via registered mail to San Mateo’s address, but it was returned unclaimed with notations of three notices from the postmaster.
The Metropolitan Trial Court convicted San Mateo of ten counts of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22), a decision affirmed by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals. The courts ruled that all elements of the crime were present, including the requisite notice of dishonor, which was deemed satisfied by the unclaimed demand letter and San Mateo’s prior written requests for deferment acknowledging her financial difficulties.

ISSUE

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

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted San Mateo. While the checks were issued for value and subsequently dishonored, the element of notice of dishonor was not sufficiently established. For B.P. 22 liability, the drawer must be notified that the check was dishonored and given at least five banking days to make arrangements for payment. Notice is a substantive requirement, not merely a procedural formality.
Here, the demand letter sent by registered mail was returned unclaimed. The prosecution failed to prove that San Mateo actually received the notice or that the return was due to her fault, such as unjustified refusal to claim it. The mere fact of sending is not equivalent to receipt. The notations on the envelope did not conclusively establish that she deliberately avoided receiving the notice. Her prior letters requesting deferment pertained to a different stage of the transaction and did not constitute the specific statutory notice required after the checks’ dishonor. Since the prosecution did not prove her receipt of notice beyond reasonable doubt, an essential element of the crime was lacking. However, her civil liability for the value of the checks, with interest, remains.