NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS NOTES

BASED ON AGBAYANIS BOOK AND ATTY. MERCADOS LECTURES

Page 108 of 190


BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D BATCH 2010
presented for payment and it would be paid. The loan was actually
extended but when the check was presented for payment, it was
dishonoredthe account on which it is drawn has long been closed. The
trial courts held in favor of petitioner but this was reversed by the appellate
court by ruling that the check has passed through other hands before
reaching the petitioner and the said check wasnt presented within
reasonable time and after its issuance.

HELD:
Where the instrument is not payable on demand, presentment must be
made on the day it falls due. Where it is payable on demand, presentment
must be made within a reasonable time after issue, except that in case of a
bill of exchange, presentment for payment is sufficient if made within
reasonable time after the last negotiation thereof.

Notice may be given as soon as instrument has been dishonored and
unless delay is excused must be given within the time fixed by law.

In this case, presentment and notice of dishonor were not made within
reasonable time.

September 1960date when the check was drawn
March 1964presented to drawee bank
April 1968notice of dishonor

143 LINA LIM LAO V. CA
274 SCRA 572

FACTS:
Lao was a junior officer of Premier Investment House. She was authorized
to sign checks in behalf of the corporation. On a relevant date, she met Fr.
Palijo, the provincial treasurer for the Society of the Divine World. Palijo
was authorized to invest donations with Premiere and had been investing
the Societys money with Premiere. Thereafter, he was issued checks by
Premiere, signed by its authorized officers, one of them being Lao. Upon
presentment however for encashment, said checks were dishonored as
they were drawn on insufficient funds. Palijo immediately made demands
to Premiere but to no avail. Premiere was then placed under receivership.
This prompted Palijo to file cases against Lao and Asprec who was the then
head of operations.

HELD:
The following are the elements of the first paragraph of BP22:
1. That a person makes or draws or issues any check
2. That the check is made or drawn or issued to apply on account or
for value
3. That the person who makes or draws and issues the check knows
at the time of issue that he doesnt have sufficient funds or in
credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full
upon its presentment
4. That the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee for
insufficiency of funds or credit, or would have been dishonored for
the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason,
ordered the bank to stop payment.

In the present case, the fact alone that petitioner was a signatory to the
checks subsequently dishonored merely engenders the prima facie
presumption that she knew of the insufficiency of funds, but it doesnt
render her automatically guilty of violating BP22. The prosecution has the
burden of proof to prove all the elements of the crime. If such knowledge
of insufficiency of funds is proven to be actually absent or non-existent, the
accused shouldnt be held liable for the offense defined under the first
paragraph of BP22. Although the offense is mala prohibitum, the
prosecution thereby is not excused from its responsibility of proving
beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime, one of which is
knowledge of insufficiency of funds.

Lao didnt have actual knowledge of the insufficiency of funds from the
time she drew the checks up to the time that the checks were subsequently
dishonored by the bank. Further, the scope of Laos duties didnt
encompass the funding of the corporations checks, her duties were limited
to the marketing department of the Binondo branch. It was further found
out in the trial court that when Lao drew the checks, she signed the check
blank as to the name of the payee and the amount to be drawn, and
without knowledge of the transaction for which they were issued.

Furthermore, there was no notice of dishonor sent to Lao. The notice of
dishonor may be sent by the offended party or the drawee bank. The trial
court itself found that there was absence of any personal notice of dishonor
served upon Lao by the drawee bank. The notice, if any consolation, was
given to the main office of Premiere and not on its branch office. Nor was
there any notice sent to Lao by the offended party.

Because no notice was sent, the prima facie presumption of knowledge
cannot be applied in this case.

144 BETTY KING V. PEOPLE
319 SCRA 666