RICARDO SUAREZ, petitioner, vs people of the Philippines, G.R. NO.

172573, June
19,2008

Facts

This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision of the CA

reinstating the Municipal Trial Court in Cities’ (MTCC) decision finding the petitioner
guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of BP 22.

Ricardo Suarez, herein petitioner, is the owner of the Suarez Commercial. In

order to open a credit line, he issued two postdated checks in favor to the private
respondent, A.H. Shoppers’ Mart, Inc. (Shoppers’ Mart), who is engage in business
establishment engaged in operating a grocery and department store.

When the checks became due, it was dishonored by the drawee bank for having
been drawn against a closed account. Shoppers’ Mart sent the petitioner a demand letter
to pay for the value of the checks, but the petitioner failed to make payment.

The MTCC ruled against the petitioner, but it was reversed by the RTC.
Dissatisfied with the decision, private respondent appealed to CA, which reinstated the
earlier decision of the MTCC. Hence, this petition.

Issue

WON the prosecution was able to proved the element of knowledge of

insufficiency of funds to hold the petitioner liable for violation of B.P. Blg. 22.

Ruling

The Court answered in the negative. According to the Court, under BP 22 there is
a presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds when it is proved that the issuer
had received a notice and that within five banking days from its receipt, he failed to pay
the amount of the check or to make arrangements for its payment. The full payment of
the amount appearing in the check within five banking days from notice of dishonor is a
complete defense.

In this case, the Court finds that the prosecution proved that a notice of dishonor
was sent to petitioner through registered mail. The prosecution presented a copy of the
demand letter and properly authenticated the registry return receipt. However, the
prosecution did not prove that the petitioner received the notice of dishonor. Registry
return cards must be authenticated to serve as proof of receipt of letters sent through
registered mail.

Decision: The petitioner is acquitted on reasonable doubt.