REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
MANILA
BRANCH 1
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
CRIM. CASE NO.
-versus- M-MNL-19-04645-CR
FOR: Violation of B.P.
Blg. 22
ISABEL CALATA y HERNANDEZ
Accused-Appellant.
x--------------------------------------------x
APPELLEE’S BRIEF
ALVAREZ, BATAGA, CALINGACION, HAPA and LUCERO LAW
Counsel for Private Complainant – Maybank Philippines, Inc.
Room 1-305 PLVP Bldg., cor. Rizal and Penaranda Sts.,
Legazpi City
Page | 1
SUBJECT INDEX
Contents Page
Cover Page 1
Subject Index 2
Prefatory Statement 3
Counter-Statement of Facts 3
Arguments 5
Discussion 5
Prayer 6
Cases Cited (Order of Appearance)
Ma. Rosario P. Campos vs. People of the Philippines and First
Women’s Credit Corporation, G.R. no. 187401, September 17, 2014
citing San Mateo vs. People, G.R. No. 200090, March 06, 2013.
Jesse Young vs. Court of Appeals and The People of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 140425, March 10, 2005.
Eumelia Mitra vs. People of the Philippines and Felicisimo Tarcelo,
G.R. No. 191404, July 5, 2010.
Lozano vs. Hon. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323
People v. Laggui, 171 SCRA 305
Page | 2
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
MANILA
BRANCH 1
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
CRIM. CASE NO.
-versus- M-MNL-19-04645-CR
FOR: Violation of B.P.
Blg. 22
ISABEL CALATA y HERNANDEZ
Accused-Appellant.
x--------------------------------------------x
APPELLEE’S BRIEF
Plaintiff-appellee PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, by counsel, and
unto this Honorable Court, respectfully states;
PREFATORY STATEMENT
Through this appeal, accused-appellant assails the judgment dated
March 10, 2020 in the case docketed as Criminal Case No. M-MNL-19-
04645-CR before Branch 5 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila,
finding her guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Batas Pambansa
Bilang 22.
COUNTER-STATEMENT OF FACTS
The statement of facts made by appellant in her brief is insufficient
and inaccurate in details, that we prefer to make our own counter-statement
of facts as appearing in the records of this case.
Accused-appellant Isabel Calata y Hernandez was charged before the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang
22, otherwise known as An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and
Issuance of a check Without Sufficient Funds or Credit and for other
Page | 3
Purposes. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. M-MNL-19-04645-
CR. The accusatory portion reads:
“That sometime prior to December 20, 2017, in the City of
Manila, Philippines, the said accused, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and knowingly make or draw and issue to
MAYBANK PHILLIPPINES INC., herein represented by
ELSA MARIE L. SEVILLA to apply on account or for value
BANCO DE ORO CHECK NO. 0000118329 dated December
20, 2017 in the amount of Php 1, 870, 642.30 payable to
MAYBANK PHILLIPPINES, INC. said accused well-knowing
that at the time of issue she did not have sufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank for payment of such check in full
upon its presentment, which check when presented for payment
within ninety (90) days from the date thereof was subsequently
dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason “DRAWN
AGAINST INSUFFICIENT FUNDS” and despite receipt of
notice of such dishonor, said accused, failed to pay said
MAYBANK PHILLIPPINES, INC. the amount of the check or
to make arrangement or full payment of the same within five
(5) banking days after receiving said notice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
Upon being arraigned, the accused pleaded not guilty to the crime
charged.
The prosecution established the guilt of the accused by presenting
two witnesses namely ELSA MARIE L. SEVILLA and JOHN KARLO
P. FERNANDEZ.
ELSA MARIE L. SEVILLA, a Remedial Officer under the
Remedial and Litigation Department-Quality Management of Maybank
Philippines, Inc., testified that after Maybank demanded the payment from
Calata Corporation, the accused who is its authorized representative and
check signatory, issued several checks to cover the payment. However, the
same were dishonored because they were drawn against insufficient funds. A
Notice of Dishonor was sent to the accused on November 26, 2018
immediately after her arraignment in a case pending before Branch 21.
JOHN KARLO P. FERNANDEZ, a ROPA officer, was presented
in court to prove the service of the notice of dishonor with Final Demand for
Payment. In supporting his claim that he and the accused were present at the
November 26, 2018 hearing, he presented and identified copies of the
Page | 4
Minutes of the Hearing, Certificate of Arraignment and Order. He also
identified his signature, that of Atty. Roger and accused Isabel Calata as
reflected in the Minutes of the Hearing. He testified that he handed to the
accused a Notice of Dishonor dated November 26, 2018. The accused
scanned the contents thereof, returned the same to him and walked away
hastily. He amicably asked the accused to just acknowledge the receipt of
the letter, but to no avail as the accused refused blatantly and continued to
walk away. When asked to identify the person to whom the Notice of
Dishonor was served, the witness positively identified the photograph of
accused Isabel Calata.
In the Judicial Affidavit of the accused, she merely denied the service
of the Notice of Dishonor. The fact of dishonor for the reason “DRAWN
AGAINST INSUFFICIENT FUNDS” as stamped in the subject check was
unrefuted. No other witness was presented by the defense.
On March 10, 2020, on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence,
the trial court rendered its decision finding accused Isabel Calata guilty
beyond reasonable doubt.
ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff-appellee raises the following counter-arguments to the
assignment of errors raised by the accused-appellant:
1. The Honorable Trial Court correctly ruled in concluding that the
requirement of sending the accused a Notice of Dishonor was met
by the complainant bank.
2. The pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution as well as the
clear and credible testimony of the witnesses satisfied the crucial
test of reasonable doubt to overthrow the Constitutional guaranty
of presumption of innocence and clearly established the accused-
appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
DISCUSSION
1. The Honorable Trial Court correctly ruled in concluding that the
requirement of sending the accused a Notice of Dishonor was met by
the complainant bank.
Appellant was charged, tried and convicted for violation of Batas
Pambansa Bilang 22, the essential elements of which are as follows:(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
Page | 5
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; 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.1
The existence of the second element is being questioned by the
defense after having been proved by the trial court that all the essential
requirements needed for conviction are existing.
Section 2 of BP Blg. 22 provides:
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.
Section 2 of Batas Pambansa as quoted above only creates a prima
facie knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit unless the maker or
drawer pays the holder or make arrangements thereon within five (5) days
from notice. Demand therefore is not necessary. Said notice need not be a
formal demand as in the case of Estafa. It is sufficient that notice be given
to the defendant.2 The evidence adduced clearly shows that notice was
given by the complainant that the checks were dishonored.
It must be noted that the prosecution presented two (2) credible
witnesses in order to prove that the accused has knowledge regarding the
insufficiency of funds or credit with the drawee bank. Based on the Judicial
Affidavit of one John Karlo P. Fernandez, he handed over to the accused a
Notice of Dishonor, however she refused to acknowledge the receipt of the
letter after scanning the contents thereof.
In Eumelia Mitra v. People of the Philippines and Felicisimo S.
Tarcelo, the Supreme Court ruled:
“The Court accepts the prosecution's narrative that the accused
refused to sign the same to evidence their receipt thereof. To require the
prosecution to produce the signature of the accused on said demand
1
Ma. Rosario P. Campos vs. People of the Philippines and First Women’s Credit Corporation, G.R. no.
187401, September 17, 2014 citing San Mateo vs. People, G.R. No. 200090, March 06, 2013.
2
Jesse Young vs. Court of Appeals and The People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 140425, March 10, 2005.
Page | 6
letter would be imposing an undue hardship on it. As well, actual
receipt acknowledgment is not and has never been required of the
prosecution either by law or jurisprudence.3”
In the present case, Isabel Calata alleges that there was no proper
service on her of the Notice of Dishonor, and so criminal liability must not
be imposed. Said denial deserves scant consideration. Positive assertion of
the prosecution coupled by the testimonies of two credible witnesses that a
demand letter was served prevails over the denial made by the accused.
The defense also claims that the Postman tried to serve the demand
letter three (3) times and on such occasions, the addressee failed to receive
the same. Contrary to what the defense posits, the circumstances are so
strong as to warrant knowledge of the accused pertaining to the insufficiency
of funds at the time she issued the subject check. The accused even
instructed her housemaids not to accept or receive any letter as testified by
the postman who delivered the mail. It is the usual act of refusal that is
being employed in order to dodge criminal prosecution. Tactics similar to
this must not be countenanced.
The Court, in the case of Lozano vs. Hon. Martinez, explained the
spirit behind B.P. 22. It held that:
“The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. 22 is the act of
making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored
upon its presentation for payment. The thrust of the law is to
prohibit, under pain or penal sanctions, the making of worthless
checks and putting them in circulation. Because of tis deleterious
effects on public interest, the practice is proscribed by law. The law
punished the act not as an offense against property, but an offense
against public order.”4
Violation of the Bouncing Checks Law is malum prohibitum.5 The
law was enacted to maintain faith in bank instruments for utilization in
commercial transactions. The reason of the law is its spirit. We have to apply
the spirit of the law.
2. The pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution as well as the clear
and credible testimony of the witnesses satisfied the crucial test of
reasonable doubt to overthrow the Constitutional guaranty of
presumption of innocence and clearly established the accused-
appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
3
Eumelia Mitra vs. People of the Philippines and Felicisimo Tarcelo, G.R. No. 191404, July 5, 2010.
4
Lozano vs. Hon. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323
5
People v. Laggui, 171 SCRA 305
Page | 7
The prosecution presented two perceiving (2) witnesses to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt withstanding the crucible test
of overthrowing the presumption of innocence of the said appellant. Pieces
of documentary evidence were likewise tendered in court.
On the service of the notice of dishonor, the accused merely denied
the same without presenting any other evidence to refute the testimony of
witness John Karlo Fernandez. As held by the trial court, positive allegation
of the prosecution coupled by the pieces of documentary evidence
establishing the presence of the accused at the time of the alleged service
prevails over the denial made by the accused.
Despite knowledge of the dishonor as presumed from the time she
was served with a notice, the accused failed to pay the check or make
arrangements for the payment within five days from November 26, 2018.
PRAYER
VIEWED IN THE FOREGOING LIGHT. It is respectfully prayed for
that the instant appeal be DENIED for lack of merit.
Other relief and remedies as are just and equitable, are likewise
prayed for.
July 11, 2021, Legazpi City, Philipppines.
The Law Offices of
ALVAREZ, BATAGA, CALINGACION, HAPA and LUCERO
Counsel for Private Complainant – Maybank Philippines, Inc.
Room 1-305 PLVP Bldg., cor. Rizal and Penaranda Sts.,
Legazpi City
RUDY G. ALVAREZ
IBP No. 12345678912/10-10-2019
PTR No. 987654321/11-11-2019
Roll No. 54321
MCLE Compliance No. 12345
JOCEL ISRAEL B. BATAGA
IBP No. 12345678913/10-10-2019
PTR No. 98765432/11-11-2019
Roll No. 54322
Page | 8
MCLE Compliance No. 12346
JOLIZA B. CALINGACION
IBP No. 12345678913/10-10-2019
PTR No. 98765432/11-11-2019
Roll No. 54323
MCLE Compliance No. 12347
KAREN L. HAPA
IBP No. 12345678913/10-10-2019
PTR No. 98765432/11-11-2019
Roll No. 543234
MCLE Compliance No. 12348
RUSSEL WILLIAM D. LUCERO
IBP No. 12345678913/10-10-2019
PTR No. 98765432/11-11-2019
Roll No. 543235
MCLE Compliance No. 12349
Copy Furnished by personal service:
NATANAUAN, BARBACENA, SALITA, BITARA and TOLOSA LAW
Counsels for the Accused
Pag-asa, Rawis, Legazpi City
Page | 9