Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MARILEN TIUKINHOY,
22
Respondent,
Xxxx
(c) Within ten (10) days from receipt of the subpoena with the
complaint and supporting affidavits and documents, the
respondent shall submit his counter-affidavit and that of his
witnesses and other supporting documents relied upon for his
defense. The counter-affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to
and certified as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, with
copies thereof furnished by him to the complainant. The
respondent shall not be allowed to file a motion to dismiss in lieu
of a counter-affidavit.
8. The Supreme Court, in the case of San Mateo vs. People of the
Philippines3, the Supreme Court considered the following
elements to determine whether there has been a violation of
B.P.22: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to
apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker,
1 Andres Dy vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93756, 22 March 1991
2 Saturnino Ocampo vs. Hon. Ephrem S. Abando, G.R. 176830, 11 February 2014
3 Erlinda San Mateo vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. 200090, 06 March 2013
9.
10.
11.
Clearly, the finding that the respondent had knowledge of
the insufficiency of her funds with the drawee bank for the
payment of the check in full upon its presentment, does not
appear on record or in any evidence adduced by the complainant
with this Honorable Office. Furthermore, it does not appear on
4 Id.
record that the notice of dishonor has been properly served and
authenticated, as required by jurisprudence.
12.
As can be gleaned from Annex C of the ComplaintAffidavit of Justine Benedict G. Dela Rosa, the demand letter was
effected through and received by the village security guard S/G
Reian De Leon Daria, and not to the respondent herein.
13.
Clearly, the service of the demand letter was non-compliant
with the mandatory directive of the rule on actual receipt of the
notice of dishonor. The respondent herein was not personally
handed a copy of the notice of dishonor.
14.
It is most respectfully submitted that the Honorable Office
erred in recommending that the respondent be indicted for
violation of B.P.22 for lack of an essential element of the crime.
15.
Based on the foregoing, it is evident that an Information for
Violation of B.P.22 must necessarily fail for lack of sufficient
evidence to establish a prima facie case and/or such must
necessarily preclude the finding of probable cause against the
respondent.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the respondent, Marilen
Tiukinhoy, most humbly prays that the Resolution of this
Honorable Office dated 29 May 2014, finding probable cause
against the respondent for Violation of B.P.22 recommending that
that the Information for Violation of the B.P.22, be RECONSIDERED
and SET ASIDE and that the instant complaint be DISMISSED for
lack of evidence.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are
likewise prayed for.
Makati for City for Makati City, 13 June 2012.