Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
CITY OF MANILA

Concord Leasing and Financing Corp.

Herein represented by Cristina S. De
Jesus,
Complainant, FOR: B.P. 22

-versus-

Marites L. Buraga,
Respondent
x------------------------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

This resolves the complaint for violation of BP 22 filed by Cristina S. De Jesus against the
respondent Marites L. Buraga. The complainant avers by way of complaint affidavit that she is
the authorized representative of Concord Leasing and Financing Corp. (CLFC), a domestic
corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine law.
Complainant is one of the authorized financing companies of Cross Country Motors,
Incorporated (CMMI), a dealer of van, trucks and buses. In January 2014, Respondent
purchased a brand new unit of Golden Dragon Van from CCMI. Respondent obtained a loan
from CLFC amounting to P841,500.00 payable in three (3) years with an interest rate of 10% per
annum and executed a negotiable promissory note with chattel mortgage in favor of the same.
The respondent as partial payment of her loan to CLFC issued the two BPI post-dated
checks in Manila in the amount of Twenty-Five thousand pesos and Ninety-Five centavos
(P22,065.95). However, the checks were declared by the drawee bank to be drawn against a
“closed account”. Despite the receipt of the demand letter dated August 24, 2016, respondent
has failed and refused to pay and/or make good the checks without justifiable cause.
After a careful study of the facts of the case, there is reasonable cause to indict the
respondent for violation of section 2 of B.P. 22 to wit:
Section 2 - Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds- The making, drawing and
issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in
or credit with such bank, when presented within ninety days from the date of the check, shall be
prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or
drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for payment
in full by the drawee of such check within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such
check has not been paid by the drawee.
To be liable for violation of B.P. 22, the following essential elements must be present:
(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 the 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 creditor dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any
valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.
The presence of the first and third elements in this case are undisputed. With regard to
the second element, the case of Campos v. People, GR No. 187401, September 17, 2014, is
applicable;
“in a line of cases, the Court has emphasized the importance of proof of receipt of such
notice of dishonor…to establish that the issuer of the check was aware of insufficiency of funds
when he issued the check. Considering that the second element involves a state of mind which is
difficult to establish, section 2 of BP 22 creates a presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of
funds.”
It is our opinion that such notice was actually served and received by the respondent,
thereby giving rise to the said presumption.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that the respondent should be indicted for

violation of Section 2 of B.P. 22.

City of Manila, April 21, 2017.