..

Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
VALENZUELA CITY
BRANCH 107

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

-versus- Crim. Case Nos. 83377-85414

For: Violation of B.P. 22

LEA SACLOLO MEDINA,

Accused.
x--------------------x

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
(With Prior Leave of Court)

COMES NOW, accused LEA SACLOLO MEDINA, represented by

the Public Attorney’s Office, with leave of court previously obtained,
respectfully submits this Demurrer to the Prosecution’s Evidence to this
Honorable Court on the ground that the prosecution has failed to adduce
sufficient evidence of his guilt to overcome the presumption of innocence
and shift the burden of proof:

1) During her arraignment before the Metropolitan Trial Court of

Valenzuela City, Branch 81 on 1 April 2016 accused pleaded not guilty to
38 counts of violation of BP 22. Accordingly, the parties were referred to
the Philippine Mediation Center for mediation proceedings. The mediation
was unsuccessful, however. Consequently, JDR proceeding was held on 5
October 2016 but was likewise unsuccessful.

2) On the basis of the “Ex Parte Manifestation and Motion for Re-
Raffle” filed by the private complainant through her counsel the record of
these cases was transmitted to the Office of the Clerk of Court and was
thereafter raffled to this Honorable Court. Preliminary conference was then
conducted on 22 February 2017. Trial on the merits thereafter ensued
where the prosecution presented as its witnesses Joseph C. Brillantes and
Vicente P. de Juan, Jr. on 31 May 2017 and 18 October 2017, respectively.
The prosecution then filed its “Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits with
Motion for Additional Marking” on 02 November 2017, which was granted
by the Honorable Court pursuant to its Order dated 10 November 2017
notwithstanding the defense’s “Comment/Opposition to the Prosecution’s
Formal Offer of Evidence” dated 7 November 2017.

3) Adamant that the prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence

to show the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the defense
filed a “Motion for Leave of Court to File a Demurrer to Evidence” on 21
November 2017. This was granted by the Honorable Court pursuant to its
Order dated 8 December 2017 over the “Comment/Opposition” filed by the
prosecution on 5 December 2017.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS

4) On various dates, the accused allegedly issued thirty-eight (38)

postdated checks to private complainant in payment of hardware, plywood
and lumber materials which she allegedly purchased from the latter. The
checks were dishonored upon presentment for the reason “Account
Closed”. Subsequently, private complainant sought the assistance of a
private counsel who prepared and sent a demand letter to the accused
through registered mail. The demand letter was allegedly received by the
accused herself but the return receipt vividly shows it was received not by
the accused but by a certain Rey Saclolo. There was absolutely no
evidence that Rey Saclolo is related to the accused and that he is
authorized to receive any correspondence for and in her behalf.

ISSUE

5) The pivotal issue for resolution in these cases is whether the

prosecution has proven the guilt of the accused for violation of BP 22
beyond reasonable doubt.

ARGUMENTS

6) To sustain conviction for violation of B.P. 22, the prosecution

must prove the following essential elements, namely:

(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 there were no sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its
presentment; and

(3) The dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency
of funds or credit or the dishonor for the same reason had not
the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the drawee bank
to stop payment.1

7) The second element adverted to above involves knowledge on

the part of the issuer at the time of the check’s issuance that he did not

1
San Mateo v. People, G.R. No. 200090, March 6, 2013; Ting v. CA, G.R. No. 140665, November
13, 2000
have enough funds or credit in the bank for the payment thereof upon its
presentment. Considering that this involves a state of mind, which is
difficult to verify, section 2 of the law creates a juris tantum presumption
of knowledge of insufficient fund or credit when the first and the third
elements of the offense are present. Verily, the drawer’s knowledge is
presumed from the dishonor of the check for insufficiency of funds. 2 If not
rebutted, it suffices to sustain a conviction.3 Section 2 of B.P. 22 reads
thus:

Section 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds .

— The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment
of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient
funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within
ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima
facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds
or credit unless such drawer pays the holder thereof the
amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for payment
in full by the drawee of such check within (5) banking days
after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by
the drawee.

8) In order to give rise to the prima facie presumption4 of

knowledge of insufficient funds or credit, it must be shown that: (1) the
first and third elements of the offense are present; (2) the check was
presented within 90 days from the date of maturity; 5 (3) offender received
a notice of dishonor; and (4) despite the lapse of 5 banking days after
receiving the notice, the check has not been paid by the drawee. 6 In other
words, the presumption is brought into existence only after it is proved
that the issuer had received a notice of dishonor and that within 5 days
from receipt thereof, he failed to pay the amount of the check or to make
arrangements for its payment. The presumption or prima facie evidence as
provided in the aforequoted section cannot arise, if such notice of

2
King v. People, G.R. No. 131540, December 2, 1999; Vaca v. CA, G.R. No. 131714, November
1998. Knowledge as an element of violation of B.P. 22 is a continuing eventuality. Although the
law merely requires that the offender must have knowledge of insufficiency of funds at the time
of issuance, he must continuously possess such knowledge up to the time the check was
presented for payment. Thus, lack of knowledge of insufficiency of funds to cover the check at
the time of its presentment for payment with the drawee bank is a valid defense ( Lim v. CA, G.R.
No. 107898, December 19, 1995; Idos v. CA, G.R. No. 110782, September 25, 1998; Sycip, Jr. v.
CA, G.R. No. 125059, March 17, 2000
3
Lim v. People, G.R. No. 130038, September 18, 2000
4
The term prima facie evidence denotes evidence which, if unexplained or uncontradicted, is
sufficient to sustain the proposition it supports or to establish the facts, or to counterbalance the
presumption of innocence to warrant a conviction ( Bautista v. CA, G.R. No. 143375, July 6,
2001).
5
The second requisite of presumption of knowledge is dispensable. If the complainant presented
the check beyond 90 days from date of maturity, presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds
or credit will not arise. However, accused is not deprived of his right to avert criminal prosecution
since he could still pay the check or make arrangement for its payment within 5 days from
receipt of written notice of dishonor. Thus, accused can still be convicted of violation of B.P. 22 is
there is evidence that he knew of such insufficiency ( Marigomen v. People, G.R. No. 153451, May
26, 2005).
6
Magno v. People, G.R. No. 96132, June 26, 1992
nonpayment by the drawee bank is not sent to the maker or drawer, or if
there is no proof as to when such notice was received by the drawer, since
there would simply be no way of reckoning the crucial five-day period. 7

9) The presumption shifts the burden to the drawer to prove that,

when he issued the subject check, he had no knowledge that he had
insufficient funds in the drawee bank to answer for the amount due. 8 The
presumption being disputable, it can be controverted, inter alia, by
evidence that the accused has no knowledge of the insufficiency of funds
or credit at the time of the issuance of the check, 9 or at the time of
issuance, the offender’s funds are sufficient to cover the check, 10 or by
evidence of full payment at the time of presentment or within the five-day
period from notice of the dishonor.11 The latter is a complete defense that
would lie regardless of the strength of the evidence presented by the
prosecution.12

10) Absent proof that the accused received written notice of

dishonor, a prosecution for violation of said law cannot prosper as lack of
written notice of dishonor will prevent the application of presumption of
knowledge of insufficiency,13 and will deprive the accused of his right to
avert criminal prosecution by performing some acts that would operate to
preempt the criminal action, which is in effect a violation of his right to due
process.14 The notice must be written, although no particular form is
required under B.P. Blg. 22; it is enough that notice of dishonor conveys
the information that the check issued by the accused was dishonored. 15
While section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 does not state that 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 be insufficient for
conviction under the law.16 The written notice of dishonor may be sent to
7
Ongson v. People, G.R. No. 156169, August 12, 2005; see also Vergara v. People, G.R. No.
160328, February 4, 2005
8
Sia v. People, G.R. No. 149695, April 28, 2004
9
Dingle v. IAC, G.R. No. L-75243, March 6, 1987; Dy v. People, G.R. No. 158312, November 14,
2008; Idos v. CA, supra note 20; Lao v. CA, G.R. No. 119178, June 20, 1997; Lim v. People, G.R.
No. 130038, September 18, 2000
10
Nagrampa v. People, G.R. No. 146211, August 6, 2002
11
As a rule, subsequent payments can only affect the civil, but not the criminal, liability ( Tan v.
PCIB, G.R. No. 152666, April 23, 2008). In Macalalag v. People (G.R. No. 164358, December 20,
2006), however, the Supreme Court held that payment by the accused of the amount of the
check prior to its presentment serves the same purpose. So, too, in Griffith v. CA (G.R. No.
129764, March 12, 2002), the Court held that where the creditor had collected more than a
sufficient amount to cover the value of the checks criminal offense under B.P. 22 two years after
the said collection is no longer tenable nor justified by law or equitable considerations.
12
Tan v. PCIB, G.R. No. 152666, April 23, 2008
13
Caras v. CA, G.R. No. 129900, October 2, 2001; Danao v. CA, G.R. No. 122353, June 6, 2001
14
Ambito v. People, G.R. No. 127327, February 13, 2009; Caras v. CA, .R. No. 129900, October
2, 2001; International Corporate Bank v. Gueco, G.R. No. 141968, February 12, 2001; Lao v. CA,
G.R. No. 119178; Sia v. People, G.R. No. 149695, April 28, 2004; Yu Oh v. CA, G.R. No. 125297,
June 6, 2003
15
Meriz v. People, G.R. No. 134498, November 13, 2001
16
Domagsang v. CA, G.R. No. 139292, December 5, 2000; King v. People, G.R. No. 131540,
December 2, 1999
the drawer by the drawee bank, the holder of the check, or the offended
party, either by personal delivery or by registered mail.17

11) In these consolidated cases, while the demand letter 18 and the
registry return card19 were identified by Alex Joseph DC Brillantes in his
judicial affidavit, there is, however, absolutely no proof that the demand
letter itself was actually received by the accused. What is very glaring is
that it was received by a certain Rey Saclolo. There is no proof that the
accused resides in the house where the demand letter was delivered.
Notably, the address of the accused, which was written in the demand
letter (i.e., Brgy. Valenzuela, Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija) is incomplete in that
there was no specification of the house, lot, block or phase number and/or
street name. Thus, the demand letter could have been delivered to any
house within Brgy. Valenzuela, Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija. Moreover, there
was no documentary proof that Rey Saclolo resides in the same house or
in the same compound as that of accused. There is even no proof that
they are related by consanguinity or affinity with each other or that they
are neighbors whose houses are very proximate with each other. The
prosecution witnesses merely alleged that the accused and Rey Saclolo are
relatives.

12) But it is basic evidentiary principle that bare allegations,

unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof.20 Presumptions,
conjectures, surmises or possibilities cannot replace proof, have no place
in a judicial inquiry, and are specially anathema in a criminal prosecution. 21
This is particularly significant in criminal cases where the quantum of proof
required is proof beyond reasonable doubt. 22 The consistent rule is that
penal statutes have to be construed strictly against the State and liberally
in favor of the accused. 23 Likewise, there was no proof that Rey Saclolo
was expressly or tacitly authorized by the accused to receive any
correspondence from any person for and her behalf, and that Rey Saclolo
or anyone for him actually turned over the demand letter to the accused.

13) As there is insufficient proof that accused received notice of

dishonor, the presumption that she had knowledge of insufficiency of
funds cannot arise.24 Because of this, the accused should be acquitted in
the instant cases. It is very clear that if anything liability of the accused is
only civil in nature, that is, the payment of the face value of the subject
17
Sia v. People, G.R. No. 149695, April 28, 2004
18
Exhibit “OO”
19
Exhibits “OO-3” to “OO-4”
20
Real v. Belo, G.R. No. 146224, 26 January 2007
21
People v. Purugganan, G.R. Nos. 90191-96, January 28, 1991
22
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility
of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof
which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind ( Badiola v. CA, G.R. No. 170691, April 23,
2008; Paredes v. CA, G.R. 169534, July 30, 2007; People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 172695, June 29,
2007; People v. Climaco, G.R. No. 199403, June 13, 2012; People v. Delantar , G.R. No. 169143,
February 2, 2007; People v. Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July 27, 2011; Tadeja v. People, G.R. No.
145336, July 21, 2006).
23
Ambito v. People, G.R. No. 127327, February 13, 2009,
24
Alferez v. People, G.R. No. 182301, January 31, 2011
checks with interest thereon at the legal rate of interest 25 computed from
default, that is, from the date of judicial or extrajudicial demand, until fully
paid.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed unto

this Honorable Court to order as follows:

1. to direct the prosecution to file a comment/opposition to the instant

demurrer to evidence within a non-extendible of ten (10) calendar
days from receipt hereof and to submit this demurrer to evidence
within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of filing of the said
comment/opposition or from the lapse of the ten-(10) day period to
file the same;

2. hold in abeyance the presentation of defense evidence until the

instant demurrer to evidence is resolved; and

3. grant this demurrer to evidence and to DISMISS these consolidated

cases for insufficiency of evidence.

Other reliefs and remedies, just and equitable, are likewise prayed
for.

Valenzuela City, Metro Manila, 11 December 2017.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

VALENZUELA DISTRICT OFFICE
3RD Floor, Post Office Bldg.
Justice Hall Compound, C.J. Santos St., Poblacion II,
Malinta, Valenzuela City

Through:

ATTY. RAFAEL D. PANGILINAN

Public Attorney II
Roll No. 64684
IBP No. 1048964 dated 10 January 2017 / CALMANA
Admitted to the Bar on April 29, 2015
MCLE Compliance V – 0011951 dated Nov. 11, 2015

25
The Supreme Court laid down guidelines on the imposition of legal interest in Nacar v. Gallery
Frames (G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013).
Notice:
Mr. Armel B. Tato
Clerk of Court III
Metropolitan Trial Court of Valenzuela City – Branch 107

Greetings! Kindly submit the foregoing demurrer to evidence for the

kind consideration and approval of the Honorable Court immediately upon
receipt hereof.

ATTY. RAFAEL D. PANGILINAN

Copy furnished:
ACP Conie K. Luces
Office of the City Prosecutor
Valenzuela City

Atty. Marc Terry C. Perez

Private Prosecutor
Unit A, 2nd Floor, RGH Building
No. 3 Timog Avenue, South Triangle, 1103 Quezon City
Philpost Tracking No.: RD 788 368 366 ZZ dated 12/12/17

Explanation:
Copy of the foregoing demurrer to evidence was served to Atty.
Marc Terry C. Perez through registered mail for lack of personnel to effect
personal service.

ATTY. RAFAEL D. PANGILINAN