Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSEPHINE DOMAGSANG v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 177438 2012-09-24	AMADA RESTERIO v. PEOPLE BERSAMIN, J.
Also, that the wife of Villadolid verbally informed the petitioner that the check had bounced did not satisfy the requirement of showing that written notices of dishonor had been made to and received by the petitioner. The verbal notices of dishonor were not effective because it is already settled that a notice of dishonor must be in writing.[19] The Court definitively ruled on the specific form of the notice of dishonor in Domagsang v. Court of Appeals:[20]
	GR No. 185906 2010-06-29	LOURDES AZARCON v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
All that the Bouncing Checks Law thus requires is that the accused must be notified in writing of the fact of dishonor.[21]
	GR No. 149858 2007-09-05	FRANCISCO M. BAX v. PEOPLE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Domagsang v. Court of Appeals,[10] we held that the notice of dishonor of a check to the maker must be in writing. A mere oral notice to the drawer or maker of the dishonor of his check is not enough, thus:While, indeed, Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 does not state that the notice of dishonor be in writing, taken in conjunction, however, with Section 3 of the law. i.e., "that where there are no sufficient funds in or credit with such drawee bank, such fact shall always be explicitly stated in the notice of dishonor or refusal," a mere oral notice or demand to pay would appear to be insufficient for conviction under the law. The Court is convinced that both the spirit and letter of the Bouncing Checks Law would require for the act to be punished thereunder not only that the accused issued a check that is dishonored, but that likewise the accused has actually been notified in writing of the fact of dishonor. The consistent rule is that penal statutes have to be construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused. (Emphasis supplied)
	GR NO. 153451 2005-05-26	OFELIA MARIGOMEN v. PEOPLE CALLEJO, SR., J.
Moreover, the notice of dishonor must be in writing; a verbal notice is not enough. The rationale for this was explained by the Court in Domagsang v. Court of Appeals,[37] to wit:Petitioner counters that the lack of a written notice of dishonor is fatal. The Court agrees.
	GR NO. 141669 2005-02-28	JAIME DICO v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A notice of dishonor received by the maker or drawer of the check is thus indispensable before a conviction can ensue. The notice of dishonor may be sent by the offended party or the drawee bank.[36] The notice must be in writing.[37] A mere oral notice to pay a dishonored check will not suffice. The lack of a written notice is fatal for the prosecution.
	GR No. 148557 2003-08-07	FELICITO ABARQUEZ v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
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. Both the spirit and letter of the Bouncing Checks Law require, for the act to be punished under said law, not only that the accused issued a check that was dishonored, but that likewise the accused was actually notified in writing of the fact of dishonor. The consistent rule is that penal statutes have to be construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.[12]
	GR No. 134498 2001-11-13	CELIA M. MERIZ v. PEOPLE VITUG, J.
Anent the notice of dishonor, petitioner bewails the inaccuracy thereof. She underscores the fact that the questioned checks have not been sufficiently identified. There is nothing in the law, however, that prescribes the contents of a notice of dishonor except that the same be in writing as opposed to a mere oral notice.[17]