Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BETTY KING v. PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 200090 2013-03-06	ERLINDA C. SAN MATEO v. PEOPLE ABAD, J.
In King v. People,[11] the complainant sent the accused a demand letter via registered mail. But the records showed that the accused did not receive it. The postmaster likewise certified that the letter was returned to sender. Yet despite the clear import of the postmaster's certification, the prosecution did not adduce proof that the accused received the post office notice but unjustifiably refused to claim the registered mail. The Court held that it was possible that the drawee bank sent the accused a notice of dishonor, but the prosecution did not present evidence that the bank did send it, or that the accused actually received it. It was also possible that the accused was trying to flee from the complainant by staying in different addresses. But speculations and possibilities cannot take the place of proof. The conviction must rest on proof beyond reasonable doubt.[12]
	GR No. 182301 2011-01-31	JAIME ALFEREZ v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
Section 1 of B.P. Blg. 22 defines the offense, as follows:[13]
	GR No. 172573 2008-06-19	RICARDO SUAREZ v. PEOPLE PUNO, CJ.
The presumption arises when it is proved that the issuer had received this 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.[26] The full payment of the amount appearing in the check within five banking days from notice of dishonor is a complete defense.[27] Accordingly, procedural due process requires that a notice of dishonor be sent to and received by the petitioner to afford the opportunity to avert prosecution under B.P. Blg. 22.[28]
	GR No. 149858 2007-09-05	FRANCISCO M. BAX v. PEOPLE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
SEC. 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee bank 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 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 five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.[8]
	GR NO. 140425 2005-03-10	JESSE YOUNG v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Sec. 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 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 five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee. It must be emphasized that the second element of the offense punished under the first paragraph of Section 1 of BP Blg. 22 is "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 such check in full upon its presentment." In King vs. People,[28] we held that:[t]o hold a person liable under BP 22, it is not enough to establish that a check issued was subsequently dishonored. It must be shown further that the person who issued the check knew "at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment." Because this element involves a state of mind which is difficult to establish, Section 2 of the law creates a prima facie presumption of such knowledge, . . .
	AM No. MTJ-04-1538 2004-10-21	EVELYN ONG v. JUDGE MAXWEL S. ROSETE YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Respondent likewise defends his December 3, 2001 Resolution. He stresses that prosecution for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law cannot prosper since there was no absolute proof that Betty Jao was actually notified of the dishonor of the subject checks, as required by King v. People.[28] He denies complainant's charge that the dismissal was based solely on the prosecution's failure to make a formal offer. According to him, even if he considered all the documentary evidence that had been identified and marked by the prosecution, the dismissal would have still been proper. In any case, he treated the failure of the prosecution to make a formal offer a waiver of the right to file one.