A.

Chua v People the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same
GR NO. 195248 reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop
22 November 2017 payment.
By:
Topic: Demand Letter In this case, the second element is in dispute. The Court in a different case
Petitioners: John Dennis Chua explained that the second element involves a state of mind which is difficult to
Respondents: People of the Philippines and Cristina Yao establish. Sec. 2 of BP 22 then created a prima facie presumption of such
Ponente: Martires, J. knowledge. However, the presumption that the issuer had knowledge of the
insufficient funds is brought only after it is proved that he had received a notice of
DOCTRINE: dishonor and that within 5 days from such, he failed to pay the amount being
claimed. The presumption cannot arise if such notice by the drawee bank is not
FACTS: sent to the maker or drawer, or if there is not proof as to when such notice was
 Yao alleged that she became acquainted with Chua through his mother. received, since there would be no way of reckoning the 5-day period.
 In the year 2000, the mother mentioned that Chua will be reviving their
sugar mill business so they asked Yao if she could lend them money to Therefore, the Court finds that the second element was not established. Yao
which she agreed. The following loans were given: testified that Chua’s secretary received the demand letter, yet, the secretary was
o P1M on January 3, 2001; never presented to testify. It is not enough that the prosecution proves that a
o P1M on January 7, 2001; notice of dishonor was sent to the accused. The prosecution must also prove actual
o P1.5M on February 16, 2001; and receipt because the fact of service is reckoned from receipt of such notice of
o P2.5M on June 2001. dishonor by the accused.
 As payment, Chua issued 4 checks in those amounts but they were
In this case, there is no way to ascertain when the 5-day period would start and
dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account.
there is no showing when Chua actually received the demand letter. The absence of
 Upon dishonor, Yao personally delivered her demand letter to the office
a notice of dishonor necessarily deprives the accused an opportunity to preclude a
of Chua, which was received by his secretary.
criminal prosecution. As there is insufficient proof that Chua received the notice,
 Chua was then charged with 4 counts of violation of BP 22.
the presumption that he had knowledge of insufficiency of funds cannot arise.
 METC: Chua is guilty beyond reasonable doubt; hence, the appeal via
certiorari, assailing the METC Judge’s authority to render a decision.
WHEREFORE, the petition is granted and petition is acquitted of the crime.
 RTC: Certiorari of Chua was denied for lack of merit. Reconsideration also
However, the extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of
denied.
the civil action.
 Procedural matters aside, what Chua was contesting here was the fact
that since respondents were not able to prove his receipt of notice of
dishonor, which then warrants his acquittal.
ISSUE:
 W/N failure to prove Chua’s receipt of notice of dishonor warrants his
acquittal? YES

HELD/RATIO: To be liable for BP 22, the following elements must be present: (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