This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-06-18 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| "The overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. If there exist even one iota of doubt, this Court is 'under a long standing legal injunction to resolve the doubt in favor of herein accused-petitioner.'"[30] "Any doubt shall be resolved in favor of the accused."[31] | |||||
|
2013-03-06 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| But the Court finds that the second element was not sufficiently established. Section 2[6] 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] | |||||