This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2005-03-10 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Thus, in order to create the prima facie presumption that the issuer knew of the insufficiency of funds, it must be shown that he or she received a notice of dishonor and, within five banking days thereafter, failed to satisfy the amount of the check or make arrangement for its payment.[29] As a rule, the absence of proof that the person who issued the check received any notice informing him of the fact that his check was dishonored and giving him five banking days within which to make arrangements for payment of the said check prevents the application of the disputable presumption that he had knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds at the time he issued the check.[30] Absent such presumption, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the person who issued the check had knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds when he issued the said check; otherwise, he cannot be held liable under the law.[31] | |||||
|
2005-02-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The failure of Equitable Card Network, Inc., to send another letter demanding that FEBTC Check No. 369404 be paid within five days after it has been dishonored prevents the disputable presumption - that petitioner had knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds at the time he issued the check -from arising. Absent such presumption, the burden of evidence shifts to the prosecution to prove such knowledge.[42] | |||||
|
2003-08-07 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In Caras v. Court of Appeals,[14] we note that the law provides for a prima facie rule of evidence. Knowledge of insufficiency of funds in or credit with the bank is presumed from the act of making, drawing, and issuing a check payment of which is refused by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds when presented within 90 days from the date of issue. However, this presumption is rebutted when it is shown that the maker or drawer pays or makes arrangements for the payment of the check within five banking days after receiving notice that such check had been dishonored. Thus, it is essential for the maker or drawer to be notified of the dishonor of her check, so he could pay the value thereof or make arrangements for its payment within the period prescribed by law. | |||||
|
2003-08-07 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We do not agree. In Ong v. People,[22] we held that what the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check, not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum, provided the other elements of the offense are properly proved.[23] | |||||
|
2003-06-06 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The Solicitor General contends that notice of dishonor is dispensable in this case considering that the cause of the dishonor of the checks was "Account Closed" and therefore, petitioner already knew that the checks will bounce anyway. This argument has no merit. The Court has decided numerous cases where checks were dishonored for the reason, "Account Closed"[49] and we have explicitly held in said cases that "it is essential for the maker or drawer to be notified of the dishonor of her check, so she could pay the value thereof or make arrangements for its payment within the period prescribed by law"[50] and omission or neglect on the part of the prosecution to prove that the accused received such notice of dishonor is fatal to its cause.[51] | |||||