ERLINDA C. SAN MATEO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 200090, 6 March 2013.

ABAD, J.:
Petitioner Erlinda San Mateo ordered assorted yarns from ITSP through its the Vice President for
Operations, Ravin A. Sehwani. In partial payment, thereof, she issued 11 postdated checks.
But whenever a check matured, San Mateo would call Sehwani requesting him not to deposit the
checks.
Sehwani finally deposited one check, but was it dishonored due to insufficient funds. He
informed San Mateo of the dishonor, who asked him to defer depositing the other checks since
she was encountering financial difficulties.
Sehwani deposited another check but was dishonored due to a stop payment order. Sehwani
deposited the remaining checks which were all dishonored because the account had been closed.
Sehwani attempted to contact San Mateo but she never responded.
Sehwanis counsel then sent a demand letter to San Mateos residence but the security guard of
the townhouse complex refused to accept the letter. Thereafter, he sent a copy of the demand
letter to San Mateo by registered mail which was returned to his counsels office with the
notation "N/S Party Out 12/12/05" and that San Mateo did not claim it despite three notices to
her.
San Mateo was charged with 11 counts of violation of B.P. 22, and was found guilty of 10
counts by the MTC. On appeal, the ruling was affirmed by the RTC and the CA.
ISSUE: W/N San Mateo was guilty of violating B.P. 22.
RULING: No.
To be liable for violation of B.P. 22, the following essential 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 the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or
credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause,
ordered the bank to stop payment.

In this case, the third element is present and had been adequately established. The first element
had also been established since San Mateo herself admitted that she drew and issued the same as
payment for the yarns she ordered from ITSP. Besides, the issue of lack of valuable consideration
for the issuance of checks which were later on dishonored for insufficient funds is immaterial to
the success of a prosecution for violation of B.P. 22.
However, the second element was not sufficiently established. Section 2 of B.P. 22 creates the
presumption that the issuer of the check was aware of the insufficiency of funds when he issued a
check and the bank dishonored it. This presumption, however, arises only after it is proved that
the issuer had received a written notice of dishonor.
Here, when Sehwani's counsel's attempted to serve the notice by leaving a copy with the security
guard, there was no showing that the letter ever reached San Mateo.
On the second occasion, Sehwani's counsel sent a demand letter to San Mateo by registered mail.
However, the prosecution must not only prove that a notice of dishonor was sent to the accused,
it must also prove actual receipt of said notice, because the fact of service provided for in the law
is reckoned from receipt of such notice of dishonor by the accused.
Since there is insufficient proof that San Mateo actually received the notice of dishonor, the
presumption that she knew of the insufficiency of her funds cannot arise. For this reason,
the Court cannot convict her of violation of B.P. 22.
Nevertheless, San Mateos acquittal does not entail the extinguishment of her civil liability for
the dishonored checks. An acquittal based on lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not
preclude the award of civil damages.

lawphil.net

G.R. No. 200090

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 200090

March 6, 2013

ERLINDA C. SAN MATEO, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
DECISION
ABAD, J.:
Sometime in May and July 2005, petitioner Erlinda C. San Mateo ordered assorted yarns
amounting to P327,394.14 from ITSP International, Incorporated through its Vice-President for
Operations Ravin A. Sehwani. In partial payment thereof, San Mateo issued 11 postdated
Metrobank checks amounting to P134,275.00.
Whenever a check matured, however, San Mateo would either call or write to Sehwani
requesting him not to deposit the checks due to lack of sufficient funds. In consideration of their
business relationship, Sehwani acceded to the request. But San Mateo continued to fail to settle
her account.
On October 6, 2005, Sehwani deposited Metrobank Check 917604197 dated July 25, 2005 but it
was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Sehwani immediately informed San Mateo of the
dishonor, who asked him to defer depositing the other checks since she w2s encountering
financial difficulties. On October 8, 2005, Sehwani received a letter from San Mateo explaining
her predicament and reiterating her request to coordinate first with her office before depositing
any other check. She also offered to replace Metrobank Check 917604197 with a manager's
check but failed to do so.
In November 2005, Sehwani tried to follow up with San Mateo but she never returned his call.
On November 7, 2005, he deposited Metrobank Check 917604206 dated July 21, 2005 but San
Mateo made a stop payment order. On November 11, 2005, he received a letter from San Mateo
apologizing for her failure to pay with a promise to communicate on November 21, 2005. Since
San Mateo failed to make payments, Sehwani deposited the remaining checks which were all
dishonored because the account had been closed. Sehwani attempted to contact San Mateo but
she never responded. He also sent demand letters to her last known address but she still failed to
pay the value of the checks.
On November 23, 2005, Sehwanis counsel sent a demand letter to San Mateos residence at
Greenhills, San Juan but the security guard of the townhouse complex refused to accept the letter
in compliance with San Mateos order. Thus, the liaison officer left the letter with the security
guard with the instruction to deliver the same to San Mateo. Thereafter, he sent a copy of the
demand letter to San Mateo by registered mail which was returned to his counsels office with
the notation "N/S Party Out 12/12/05" and that San Mateo did not claim it despite three notices
to her dated December 12, 2005, December 22, 2005, and January 2, 2006, respectively.
On June 5, 2006, San Mateo was charged with 11 counts of violation of Batas Pambansa (B.P.)
22. During trial, she claimed that she has an agreement with Sehwani not to deposit her checks

unless she gave a go signal. But Sehwani ignored this agreement and deposited the nine checks
which resulted in the closure of her account.
On August 27, 2009, the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Taguig City, Branch 74 found San
Mateo guilty of 10 counts of violation of B.P. 22. She was sentenced to suffer the straight penalty
of imprisonment of six months for each count and ordered to pay the total value of the 11 checks
amounting to P134,275.00.
In finding her criminally liable for 10 counts of violation of B.P. 22 but civilly liable for the total
value of the 11 checks, the MeTC declared that Metrobank Check 917604206 was dishonored
not because of insufficiency of funds or closed account but because of a stop payment order from
San Mateo.
San Mateo appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 70 which affirmed
her conviction on June 1, 2010. The RTC ruled that the third element of notice of dishonor was
duly established during the trial by the following facts: (1) her unjustified refusal to claim the
demand letter sent to her by registered mail despite three notices from the postmaster; (2) her
various letters to Sehwani requesting the latter to defer the deposit of her checks; and (3) her
statement in her Amended Affidavit that Sehwanis act of depositing the nine checks resulted in
the closure of her account.
Undeterred, San Mateo elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA). On August 23, 2011, the
CA affirmed the RTC Decision and reiterated that all the elements for violation of B.P. 22 had
been sufficiently proven in this case.1
On March 1, 2012, San Mateo filed a petition for review on certiorari before this Court raising
the following issues: (1) whether or not the subject checks were issued for valuable
consideration; (2) whether or not the demand letter sent by Sehwani constituted the notice of
dishonor required under B.P. 22; and (3) whether or not the penalty of imprisonment is proper. In
a Resolution dated April 23, 2012, the Court denied the petition for its failure to show that the
CA committed reversible error when it upheld the factual findings of both the MeTC and the
RTC that all the elements for violation of B.P. 22 had been sufficiently proven to convict San
Mateo of the said crime.
On May 30, 2012, San Mateo filed a motion for reconsideration. On July 16, 2012, the Court
granted the motion and reinstated the petition.
We grant the petition.
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

To be liable for violation of B.P. 22, the following essential 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 the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or
dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to
stop payment.4
In this case, the third element is present and had been adequately established. With respect to the
first element, the Court gives full faith and credit to the findings of the lower courts that the
checks were issued for value since San Mateo herself admitted that she drew and issued the same
as payment for the yarns she ordered from ITSP. Besides, the Court has consistently pronounced
that the issue of lack of valuable consideration for the issuance of checks which were later on
dishonored for insufficient funds is immaterial to the success of a prosecution for violation of
B.P. 22.5
But the Court finds that the second element was not sufficiently established. Section 26 of B.P. 22
creates the presumption that the issuer of the check was aware of the insufficiency of funds when
he issued a check and the bank dishonored it. This presumption, however, arises only after it is
proved that the issuer had received a written notice of dishonor and that, within five days from
receipt thereof, he failed to pay the amount of the check or to make arrangements for its
payment.7
Here, there is no basis in concluding that San Mateo knew of the insufficiency of her funds.
While she may have requested Sehwani in her letters dated October 8, 2005 and November 11,
2005, to defer depositing all the checks, with maturity dates of July and August 2005, otherwise,
her account will close, such act did not amount to an admission that, when she issued those
checks, she knew that she would have no sufficient funds in the drawee bank to pay for them.8
Upon the other hand, the records show that Sehwani tried to serve the notice of dishonor to San
Mateo two times. On the first occasion, Sehwanis counsel sent a demand letter to San Mateos
residence at Greenhills, San Juan which the security guard refused to accept. Thus, the liaison
officer left the letter with the security guard with the instruction to hand it to San Mateo. But the
prosecution failed to show that the letter ever reached San Mateo.
On the second occasion, Sehwanis counsel sent a demand letter to San Mateo by registered mail
which was returned with the notation "N/S Party Out 12/12/05" and that San Mateo did not claim
it despite three notices to her.
It has been the consistent ruling of this Court that receipts for registered letters including return
receipts do not themselves prove receipt; they must be properly authenticated to serve as proof of
receipt of the letters, claimed to be a notice of dishonor.9 To be sure, the presentation of the
registry card with an unauthenticated signature, does not meet the required proof beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused received such notice. It is not enough for the prosecution to
prove that a notice of dishonor was sent to the accused. The prosecution must also prove actual

receipt of said notice, because the fact of service provided for in the law is reckoned from receipt
of such notice of dishonor by the accused.10
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 postmasters 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
Since there is insufficient proof that San Mateo actually received the notice of dishonor, the
presumption that she knew of the insufficiency of her funds cannot arise. For this reason, the
Court cannot convict her with moral certainty of violation of B.P. 22.
Nevertheless, San Mateos acquittal does not entail the extinguishment of her civil liability for
the dishonored checks.13 An acquittal based on lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not
preclude the award of civil damages.14 For this reason, the trial courts directive for San Mateo to
pay the civil liability in the amount of P134,275.00 representing the total value of the 11 checks
plus 12% interest per annum from the time the said sum became due and demandable until fully
paid, stands.
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition. The assailed Decision dated August 23, 2011 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR 33434 finding petitioner Erlinda C. San Mateo guilty of 10
counts of violation of B.P. 22 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Erlinda C. San Mateo
is hereby ACQUITTED on the ground that her guilt has not been established beyond reasonable
doubt. She is ordered, however, to indemnify the complainant, ITSP International, Incorporated,
represented by its Vice-President for Operations Ravin A. Sehwani, the amount of P 134,275.00
representing the total value of the 11 checks plus 12% interest per annum from the time the said
sum became due and demandable until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice

MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN

Associate Justice
AT T E S T AT I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision ad been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Footnotes
1

Rollo, pp. 34-47.

Llenado v. People, G.R. No. 193279, March 14, 2012, 668 SCRA 330, 333.

Bax v. People, G.R. No. 149858, September 5, 2007, 532 SCRA 284, 289.

Rico v. People, 440 Phil. 540, 551 (2002).

Dreamwork Construction, Inc. v. Janiola, G.R. No. 184861, June 30, 2009, 591
SCRA 466, 478.
6

Section 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 (5) banking days after receiving notice that such
check has not been paid by the drawee.
7

Moster v. People, G.R. No. 167461, February 19, 2008, 546 SCRA 287, 297.

Sia v. People, G.R. No. 149695, April 28, 2004, 428 SCRA 206, 226.

Svendsen v. People, G.R. No. 175381, February 26, 2008, 546 SCRA 659, 666.

10

Alferez v. People, G.R. No. 182301, January 31, 2011, 641 SCRA 116, 123-124.

11

King v. People, 377 Phil. 692 (1999).

12

Id. at 710.

13

Ambito v. People, G.R. No. 127327, February 13, 2009, 579 SCRA 69, 94.

14

Supra note 3, at 292-293.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation