Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALFREDO RIGOR v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 191404 2010-07-05	EUMELIA R. MITRA v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment. [13]
	GR No. 184861 2009-06-30	DREAMWORK CONSTRUCTION v. CLEOFE S. JANIOLA VELASCO JR., J.
Undeniably, the fact that there exists a valid contract or agreement to support the issuance of the check/s or that the checks were issued for valuable consideration does not make up the elements of the crime. Thus, this Court has held in a long line of cases[21] that the agreement surrounding the issuance of dishonored checks is irrelevant to the prosecution for violation of BP 22. In Mejia v. People,[22] we ruled:It must be emphasized that the gravamen of the offense charge is the issuance of a bad check. The purpose for which the check was issued, the terms and conditions relating to its issuance, or any agreement surrounding such issuance are irrelevant to the prosecution and conviction of petitioner. To determine the reason for which checks are issued, or the terms and conditions for their issuance, will greatly erode the faith the public reposes in the stability and commercial value of checks as currency substitutes, and bring havoc in trade and in banking communities. The clear intention of the framers of B.P. 22 is to make the mere act of issuing a worthless check malum prohibitum.
	GR No. 127327 2009-02-13	LIBERATA AMBITO v. PEOPLE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The notice of dishonor of a check may be sent to the drawer or maker by the drawee bank, the holder of the check, or the offended party either by personal delivery or by registered mail. The notice of dishonor to the maker of a check must be in writing.[31]
	GR No. 146424 2005-11-18	ALBINO JOSEF v. PEOPLE** CORONA, J.
1) making, drawing and issuing any check to apply on account or for value; 2) 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) subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or dishonor of the check for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.[9]
	GR NO. 156169 2005-08-12	VICTOR ONGSON v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
With respect to the various demand letters marked as Exhs. "H", "J", "K", "L" and "M", we admit them insofar as we intend to prove that there was such a demand letter and demand these letters were received by the accused (sic);[46] In King v. People,[47] it was held that the accused's admission through counsel, made during the trial, binds the client. Similarly, in Rigor v. People,[48] the Court ruled that the accused cannot pretend that he did not receive the notice of dishonor of the check because the transcript of records shows that the accused admitted knowledge of the dishonor of his check through a demand letter received by him.
	GR NO. 140425 2005-03-10	JESSE YOUNG v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Corollarily, petitioner is not exculpated from the offense he committed even if at the time of issuance of the check he informed the private complainant that he does not have sufficient funds to cover the amount of the check he issued. We have held that knowledge of the payee of the insufficiency or lack of funds of the drawer with the drawee bank is immaterial as deceit is not an essential element of an offense penalized by BP Blg. 22.[37]