21. G.R. No.

140665    November 13, 2000

VICTOR TING "SENG DEE" and EMILY CHAN-AZAJAR, petitioners,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Facts: From 1991 to 1992, Juliet Ting "Chan Sioc Hiu" obtained loans, in the aggregate amount of
P2,750,000.00, from private complainant Josefina K. Tagle for use in Juliet's furniture business. As
payment thereof, Juliet issued eleven (11) post-dated checks which, upon maturity, were dishonored for
reasons of "Closed Account" or "Drawn Against Insufficient Funds." Juliet was subsequently prosecuted
for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Due to her financial difficulties, Juliet requested her husband
Victor Ting "Seng Dee" and her sister Emily Chan-Azajar (petitioners herein) to take over her furniture
business, including the obligations appurtenant thereto. Agreeing to Juliet's request, petitioners issued
nineteen (19) checks in replacement of the eleven (11) checks earlier issued by Juliet. The planned take-
over, however, never materialized since the Naga Hope Christian School, petitioner Emily Chan-Azajar's
employer in Naga, refused to let her resign to attend to her sister's business. Since the planned take-over
did not take place, petitioners requested Juliet to reassume her obligation to private complainant Tagle by
replacing the checks they had previously issued to the latter. Thus, Juliet replaced the nineteen (19)
checks issued by petitioners with twenty-three (23) Far East Bank checks in favor of Tagle. Petitioners
then requested private complainant Tagle to return the nineteen (19) checks they had issued to her.
Instead of returning the checks, Tagle deposited seven of the checks with MetroBank where they were
dishonored for being "Drawn Against Insufficient Funds."

Issue: Whether Ting and Emily are liable for the crime of B.P. 22

Held: No. They are not liable for the said crime/charge.

The absence of a notice of dishonor necessarily deprives an accused an opportunity to preclude a

criminal prosecution. Accordingly, procedural due process clearly enjoins that a notice of dishonor be
actually served on petitioner. Petitioner has a right to demand — and the basic postulate of fairness
require — that the notice of dishonor be actually sent to and received by her to afford her the opportunity
to avert prosecution under BP 22. It is necessary in cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, that
the prosecution prove that the issuer had received a notice of dishonor. It is a general rule that when
service of notice is an issue, the person alleging that the notice was served must prove the fact of service.
Hence, for failure on the part of prosecution to prove that the demand letter together with the notice of
dishonor were received by Ting and Emily, the latter are acquired of the charges.
20. THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 185906 : June 29, 2010]

LOURDES AZARCON,[1] PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND MARCOSA

GONZALES, RESPONDENTS.

Facts: Lourdes had been borrowing money from Marcosa Gonzales (Marcosa) who was engaged in
informal money-lending. Between the months of August to December 1992, as was usual in the normal
course of their transactions, petitioner issued several Premiere Bank checks payable to Marcosa, dated at
ten-day intervals, in exchange for cash received. Due to business reverses suffered by petitioner,
however, the checks were, on maturity, dishonored for the reason "Account Closed." Marcosa, through
counsel, thus demanded, by letter of December 1, 1993 to petitioner, the settlement of her P749,000.00
obligation for which she issued "several Premium Bank checks, with the assurance that all will be
honored" but that they were all dishonored due to "Account Closed.". Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether Lourdes Azarcon is liable of 84 counts of violation of BP 22.

Held: Yes. She is guilty for the crime charged.

Liability for violation of B.P. 22 attaches when the prosecution establishes proof beyond reasonable doubt
of the existence of the following elements:

1. The accused makes, draws or issues any check to apply to account or for value;

2. The accused knows at the time of the issuance that he or she 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 check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or it
would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered
the bank to stop payment

All that the Bouncing Checks Law thus requires is that the accused must be notified in writing of the fact
of dishonor. Petitioner admittedly received the December 1, 1993 demand letter of Marcosa. In fact, in
her reply letter of December 17, 1993, petitioner sought a reconciliation of accounts and expressed
willingness to settle - an indication of her awareness of what checks Marcosa was referring to in the
December 1, 1993 letter.
19. FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. NO. 156541 : February 23, 2009]

LUZ CAJIGAS and LARRY CAJIGAS, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF
APPEALS, Respondents.

Facts: The accused spouses, conspiring and confederating together and/or mutually helping one another,
with intent to gain, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud Daisy Fuentes by means
of false and fraudulent representations constituting deceit, well knowing that they have no sufficient funds
deposited in the bank, and such fact was not disclosed to private offended party, draw, issue and
negotiate ABC Check No. PA 660524012 F, dated October 2, 1989, covering the amount of P30,000.00
and ABC Check No. PA 660524014 F, dated October 5, 1989, covering the amount of P25,000.00 and by
means of said false pretenses or assurances and other similar deceits by active participation of accused
Larry Cajigas induced private offended party to exchange aforestated checks with assorted jewelries in
the amount of P55,000.00 for which the same did give and deliver to the above-named accused who fully
well know that their manifestations and representations made to private offended party were false and
untrue and upon presentation of ABC Check No. PA 660524012 F and ABC Check No. PA 660524014 F
to the bank for payment the same was dishonored and unpaid for reason that the account of accused was
closed and despite notice and demands made to them by private offended party that the aforestated
checks were dishonored, the same failed and refused to make good said checks to the damage and
prejudice of Daisy Fuentes in the amount of P55,000.00. Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether petitioners are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of estafa under Article 315,
paragraph 2(d) of the RPC, as amended by PD 818.

Held: Luz is guilty of two counts of estafa under Article 315, 2(d) of the RPC. The elements of estafa
under paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the RPC are (1) the postdating or issuance of a check in payment of
an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued; (2) lack of sufficiency of funds to cover the
check; and (3) damage to the payee. In the present case, the prosecution sufficiently established Luz's
guilt beyond reasonable doubt for two counts of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the RPC. Luz
admits issuing the subject postdated checks as payment for the jewelries she purchased from Daisy. In
their various transactions, Daisy always required the issuance of checks in exchange for the jewelries
purchased by Luz.
18. G.R. No. 42782, October 31, 1935 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPFINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND
APPELLEE, VS. ARNULFO QUESADA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

(People vs. Quesada G.R. No. 42782 October 31, 1935)

Facts: Quesada’s house was burglarized while he was not home, with several items being taken.
Quesada learned that the person who burglarized his home was a man named Edie. Quesada and his
neighbor, who had informed him the culprit may be Edie, devised a plan to recover the property. Edie
brought the stereo he had stolen from Quesada’s home over to the neighbors house to sell. Quesada and
a friend were there to confront Edie about stealing the stereo and Edie proceeded to flee to his vehicle.
Quesada’s friend pursued, grabbing inside the vehicle. Quesada, in fear that Edie would hurt the friend,
fired several shots at the vehicle, striking Edie in the chest. Quesada was charged with murder and
ultimately convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Quesada argued that his defense was necessary
because it was during the commission of a dangerous felony, the burglary.

Issue: Whether a defendant can use use deadly force in self defense during the commission of a non
violent felony that poses no threat of bodily harm.

Held: No. A defendant cannot use deadly force in self defense during the commission of a non violent
felony that poses no threat of bodily harm.

A defendant cannot use deadly force during the commission of a non violent felony such as the burglary
of an unoccupied dwelling at night. The defendant cannot apprehend or use force against the burglar
suspected of stealing his property because there is no risk of bodily harm for a burglary of an unoccupied
dwelling. Here, Edie did not, and could not, pose any harm to Quesada during the burglary because
Quesada was not home at the time of the burglary. Deadly force cannot be justified for the simple
purposes of apprehending a person suspected of stealing from another person's home