Dear Paolo,

In a long line of cases, our Supreme Court has held that it is essential to prove all
the elements of the crime of violation of Batas Pambansa (BP) 22 or the Bouncing
Checks Law. These are: (1) Making, drawing and issuing any check to apply for
account or for value; (2) 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 being presented to the bank; and (3)
Subsequent 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 (Amada Resterio vs. People of
the Philippines, G.R. No. 177438, September 24, 2012; ponente: Associate Justice
Lucas Bersamin; (Maria Rosario P. Campos vs. People of the Philippines and First
Women’s Credit Corporation, G.R. No. 187401, September 17, 2014, ponente:
Associate Justice Bienvenido Reyes; and Sonia P. Ruiz vs. People of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 160893, November 18, 2005; ponente: former Associate Justice Romeo
Callejo Sr.).

In your situation, it appears that the first and third elements are not in
issue. You seem to be more concerned about the existence of the
second element — the required knowledge of the maker or drawer and
issuer of the check that there are no sufficient funds in or credit with
the drawee bank. Such knowledge is challenging to prove as it is a
state of mind, which can be easily repudiated to avoid liability.
Notwithstanding, Section 2 of BP 22 provides the prima facie
evidence of such knowledge, that is – “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 x x x”
However, be informed that criminal liability will not attach if the “x x
x maker or 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. x x x” (Id.) Accordingly, written notice must
be given to the maker or drawer and issuer of the check and if he fails
to settle the subject amount within the five-day given period, then he
may be held responsible for violation of BP 22.

We wish to emphasize that when notification is done by registered

mail, such as in your situation, it is essential that there be
authenticating affidavit executed by the person/s who had actually
mailed such notification, apart from the registry receipts. As explained
by the Supreme Court in the above-cited case of Resterio vs. People
(Id.):

“x x x Considering that the sending of the written notices of dishonor

had been done by registered mail, the registry return receipts by
themselves were not proof of the service on the petitioner without
being accompanied by the authenticating affidavit of the person or
persons who had actually mailed the written notices of dishonor, or
without the testimony in court of the mailer or mailers on the fact of
mailing. The authentication by affidavit of the mailer or mailers was
necessary in order for the giving of the notices of dishonor by
registered mail to be regarded as clear proof of the giving of the
notices of dishonor to predicate the existence of the second element of
the offense. x x x”

Accordingly, in pursuing the complaint against your former officemate

for violation of BP 22, you will need to execute the afore-stated
affidavit if you have personally done the mailing of your demand
letters yourself. If the mailing was done by another person/s, kindly
have them execute the affidavit. You will need to present this
document together with the mentioned registry receipts in order for
you to adequately prove the existence of the second element of subject
crime.