SVENDSEN v.
PEOPLE
FACTS:
In October 1997, Cristina Reyes (Cristina) extended a loan to petitioner in the amount of P200,000,
to bear interest at 10% a month. After petitioner had partially paid his obligation, he failed to settle
the balance thereof which had reached P380,000 inclusive of interest. Cristina thus filed a collection
suit against petitioner, which was eventually settled when petitioner paid her P200,000 and issued in
her favor an International Exchange Bank check postdated February 2, 1999 (the check) in the
amount of P160,000 representing interest. The check was co-signed by one Wilhelm Bolton. When
the check was presented for payment on February 9, 1999, it was dishonored for having been Drawn
Against Insufficient Funds (DAIF). Cristina, through counsel, thus sent a letter to petitioner by
registered mail informing him that the check was dishonored by the drawee bank, and demanding
that he make it good within five (5) days from receipt thereof. No settlement having been made by
petitioner, Cristina filed a complaint dated March 1, 1999 against him and his co-signatory to the
check, Bolton, for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 before the City Prosecutors Office of Manila. Bolton having
remained at large, the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over his person. By Judgment of
December 17, 2003, Branch 5 of the Manila MeTC found petitioner guilty as charged of BP 22 and a
fine of Php 160,000 with subsidiary imprisonment and Php 160,000 as civil liability covered by the
check. As priorly stated, the RTC affirmed the MeTC judgment and the Court of Appeals denied
petitioners appeal. Hence, the present petition for review.
Petitioner has the following ARGUMENTS:
1) the appellate court erred in finding that the first element of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 the
making, drawing, and issuance of any check "to apply on account or for value" was present,
as the obligation to pay interest is void, the same not being in writing and the 10% monthly
interest is unconscionable
2) in holding him civilly liable in the amount of P160,000 to private complainant,
notwithstanding the invalidity of the interest stipulation;
3) violating his right to due process when it convicted him, notwithstanding the absence of
proof of receipt by him of a written notice of dishonor.
ISSUE: W/N accused may be held liable for violation of BP 22
HELD: For petitioner to be validly convicted of the crime under B.P. Blg. 22, the following requisites
must thus concur: (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. The facts show that the accused are guilty of the 1 st and 3rd requisites as
petitioner admits having issued the postdated check to Cristina. The check, however, was
dishonored when deposited for payment in Banco de Oro due to DAIF. Hence, the first and the third
elements obtain in the case. However, although knowledge may be hard to prove, the law provides
for a presumption juris tantum upon finding of the 1 st and 3rd element and a notice of dishonor to the
drawer.
As held in Rico v. People: notice of non-payment by the drawee bank is not sent to the maker or
drawer of the bum check, or if there is no proof as to when such notice was received by the drawer,
then the presumption of knowledge as provided in Section 2 of B.P. 22 cannot arise, since there
would simply be no way of reckoning the crucial five-day period. The law requires: a written notice
of dishonor or demand letters actually received by the drawer of a dishonored check, but there must
also be proof of receipt thereof that is properly authenticated, and not mere registered receipt
and/or return receipt. In absence thereof, the accused cannot be found guilty of B.P. 22. Therefore,
Prepared by: Micaela de Guzman
he must be acquitted. Decision of CA is reversed. He must pay civil liability, as 10%/month is
unconscionable, 12%/annum is proper. As such, he must pay PHP 16,000 for his civil liability (as
opposed to 160,000 in his prayer & keep in mind this originated from 200,000 which became
380,000 and 200,000 was paid but not the 180,000)
Prepared by: Micaela de Guzman
