JOSEPHINE DOMAGSANG vs.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. NO. 139292 | December 5, 2000 | J. Vitug
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY; BP 22

DOCTRINE: To secure conviction for the violation of BP 22, the prosecution must establish the fact that the check
was dishonoured AND that the accused has been notified in writing of the fact of dishonor.

The law does not presume that the offender knows of the fact of dishonor from merely making an instrument
without value. As such, the accused is still entitled to notice of such dishonour.

FACTS:
On May 8, 1992, Criminal case was filed against petitioner Josephine Domagsang by private complainant Ignacio H.
Garcia in RTC Makati , which read that she issued a Php50,000 Trader's Royal Bank check postdated January 24, 1991
payable to him, but upon deposit of the check, the checks were dishonored by the bank because the account where
the funds to be drawn was closed. Later, subsequent information filed against her by Garcia for remaining 17 Trader's
Royal Bank checks, charging the same accusation as the previous suit. The said 18 postdated checks were issued by
Josephine Domagsang in Garcia's name as repayment of the loan that she obtained from him for financial assistance.
Garcia failed to receive payment for the dishonored checks. He demanded payment from her by allegedly calling her
office and stating the dishonor of the issued checks. He made a subsequent demand for payment (through his lawyer)
to Domagsang, but his demands were ignored by her.

She filed with leave of court demurrer to evidence on September 7, 1993, stating that there was absence of a
demand letter from Garcia and that the checks were issued as collaterals or evidence of indebtedness and not as
payment. During the hearing on February 17, 1994, Domagsang through her counsel waived her right to present
evidence in her defense. Later on, the trial court convicted her of 18 counts of violating BP 22 and she was sentenced
for 1 year of imprisonment for each count, and was ordered to pay Garcia the amount of Php573, 800. The trial
court's decision was affirmed by the CA in its February 15, 1999 decision. She asked for the appellate court for
reconsideration of its decision, but the CA expressed its denial via its July 9, 1999 resolution.

Domagsang raised that there was no proper written letter of demand served upon her person, thus she must not be
charged for the violation of BP 22. According to Domagsang, even if she was informed of the dishonour by Garcia
through a telephone call, the same is not sufficient to convict.

ISSUE: Whether Garcia's alleged verbal demand of payment to Domagsang was sufficient to convict of violating the
Anti-Bouncing Checks Law and that written notice of dishonor is required for such conviction?

HELD: While, indeed, Section 2 of B.P. 22 does not state that the notice of dishonor be in writing, taken in conjunction,
however, with Section 3 of the law, i.e., "that where there are no sufficient funds in or credit with such drawee bank,
such fact shall always be explicitly stated in the notice of dishonor or refusal," a mere oral notice or demand to pay
would appear to be insufficient for conviction under the law.

The Court is convinced that both the spirit and letter of the Bouncing Checks Law would require for the act to be
punished thereunder not only that the accused issued a check that is dishonored, but that likewise the accused has
actually been notified in writing of the fact of dishonour.

Evidently, the appellate court did not give weight and credence to the assertion that a demand letter was sent by a
counsel of the complainant because of the failure of the prosecution to formally offer it in evidence. Courts are
bound to consider as part of the evidence only those which are formally offered,for judges must base their findings
strictly on the evidence submitted by the parties at the trial. Without the written notice of dishonor, there can be
no basis, considering what has heretofore been said, for establishing the presence of "actual knowledge of
insufficiency of funds.
There is no prima facie presumption of the knowledge of dishonour in BP 22, thus notice of dishonour (written) is
required to secure conviction.

The law enumerates the elements of the crime to be:

(1) the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value;
(2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in
or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and
(3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor
for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.

There is deemed to be a prima facie evidence of knowledge on the part of the maker, drawer or issuer of insufficiency
of funds in or credit with the drawee bank of the check issued if the dishonored check is presented within 90 days
from the date of the check and the maker or drawer fails to pay thereon or to make arrangement with the drawee
bank for that purpose.

The statute has created the prima facie presumption evidently because "knowledge" which involves a state of mind
would be difficult to establish. The presumption does not hold, however, when the maker, drawer or issuer of the
check pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon or makes arrangement for payment in full by the drawee
bank of such check within 5 banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee
bank.