You are on page 1of 1

It is the main intention of the law to make the issuer of a worthless check liable since the introduction of

worthless checks is not just harmful to the innocent payees but the entire economy, as well. However,
one must bear in mind that the mere issuance of a worthless check would not make one liable for BP 22.
It is incumbent upon the accuser to prove not only that the accused issued a check that was
subsequently dishonored, but it must be established that the accused was actually notified that the
check was dishonored. The Notice of Dishonor must be in writing. A mere oral notice to the drawer or
maker of a check is not enough to convict him with violation of BP 22

-Bax v. People, G.R. No. 149858, 5 September 2007

*There was no showing that at the time said checks were issued, Mr. Reyes had knowledge that his
deposit or credit in the bank would be insufficient to cover them when presented for encashment (Sycip
vs CA)

*Elements of BP 22 Sycip vs Ca

The element of knowledge of insufficiency of funds having been proven to be absent, petitioner is
therefore entitled to an acquittal