This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-03-06 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| It is a settled rule that the remedy of appeal through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court contemplates only errors of law and not errors of fact.[2] The issues of: (1) whether or not the subject checks were issued for valuable consideration; and (2) whether or not the demand letter sent by Sehwani constituted the notice of dishonor required under B.P. 22, are factual matters that belong to the proper determination of the MeTC, the RTC and the CA. But when such courts have overlooked certain facts and circumstances which, if taken into account, would materially affect the result of the case, this Court may re-examine their findings of facts.[3] | |||||
|
2009-02-13 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Under B.P. Blg. 22, the prosecution must prove not only that the accused issued a check that was subsequently dishonored. It must also establish that the accused was actually notified that the check was dishonored, and that he or she failed, within five (5) banking days from receipt of the notice, to pay the holder of the check the amount due thereon or to make arrangement for its payment. Absent proof that the accused received such notice, a prosecution for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law cannot prosper.[27] | |||||