Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EVANGELINE CABRERA v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 172573 2008-06-19	RICARDO SUAREZ v. PEOPLE PUNO, CJ.
The evidence shows that the prosecution proved that a notice of dishonor was sent to petitioner through registered mail. The prosecution presented a copy of the demand letter and properly authenticated the registry return receipt.[29] However, it is not enough for the prosecution to prove that a notice of dishonor was sent to the petitioner. It is also incumbent upon the prosecution to show "that the drawer of the check received the said notice because the fact of service provided for in the law is reckoned from receipt of such notice of dishonor by the drawee of the check."[30]
	GR No. 167461 2008-02-19	VICKY MOSTER v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
Upon careful examination of the records, however, we found that only the first and third elements have been established by the prosecution. By her own admission, petitioner issued the three subject checks, two of which were presented to PhilBank but were dishonored and stamped for the reason "Account Closed." Under Section 3[16] of B.P. Blg. 22, the introduction in evidence of the dishonored check, having the drawee's refusal to pay stamped or written thereon, or attached thereto, with the reason therefor as aforesaid shall be prima facie evidence of the making or issuing of the said checks and the due presentment to the drawee for payment and the dishonor thereof, and that the same was properly dishonored for the reason written, stamped or attached thereto by the drawee on such dishonored checks.[17]
	GR NO. 156169 2005-08-12	VICTOR ONGSON v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Finally, petitioner should be ordered to pay interest of 12% per annum pursuant to Cabrera v. People,[60] that when an obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing. In the absence of such stipulation, the rate shall be 12% per annum computed from judicial or extrajudicial demand. In this case, there was no stipulated interest on petitioner's obligation to pay the value of the dishonored checks. Demand for payment was made extrajudicially as evidenced by petitioner's receipt of private complainant's demand letter with notice of dishonor. The applicable interest rate is therefore 12% per annum from the date of receipt of the demand letter on December 7, 1992 for Check Nos. 492666, 492482, 492581 and 492319; December 10, 1992 for Check No. 119789; and December 18, 1992 for Check No. 492837 until finality of this decision. From the finality of this decision, the total amount of the dishonored checks inclusive of interest shall further earn 12% interest per annum until fully paid.
	GR NO. 160328 2005-02-04	TERESITA ALCANTARA VERGARA v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The presumption that the issuer has knowledge of the insufficiency of funds is brought into existence only after it is proved that the issuer had received notice of dishonor and that within 5 banking days from receipt thereof, he failed to pay the amount of the check or to make arrangement for its payment.[23] The prosecution is burdened to prove these acts that give rise to the prima facie presumption.[24]