check becomes stale after more than six months or 180 days

(Luis S, Wong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117857, February 2,

2001).
No, Gemma is no longer liable to the holder based on the
instrument. Gemma is already discharged from secondary
liability under the check, because presentment and notice
of dishonor was made after an unreasonable length of time
of more than three years. The check was already stale at the
time of presentment.
However, Gemma may still be liable to the holder
if the latter is her contracting party. Failure to present the
instrument on time does not totally wipe out all liability
based on contract. Although she may not be liable on the
check, she may be liable on their contract (1994 Bar).
Note: The rule is the same in the case of failure to give
notice of dishonor to the drawer or failure to protest for
foreign bills, that is, the obligation based on contract may
remain although the liability under the instrument itself may
be discharged (See Producers Bank v. Excelsa Industries, G.R.
No. 157071, May 8, 2009, and Vasquez v. Solidbank Corporation,
G.R. No. 157309, March 28, 2008).
15.04. PRESENTMENT FOR ACCEPTANCE
a)
WHEN MANDATORY (Sec. 143, NIL)
Presentment for acceptance is required in
the following cases:
1)
2)
3)
Where the bill is payable within a fixed
period after sight, or in any other case, where
presentment for acceptance is necessary in
order to fix the maturity of the instrument;
Where the bill expressly stipulates that it
shall be presented for acceptance; or
Where the bill drawn is payable elsewhere
than at the residence or place of business of
the drawee.
Note: It is not necessary to present a
check for acceptance because it is not one of
those required to be presented for acceptance
under Section 143.