Danao vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No.

122353, June 6, 2001)

● Doctrine
Knowledge is an essential element for the accused to be charged in violation under Batas Pambansa Blg.
22.

● Facts
After the request of Petitioner, Danao of the issuance of additional loan was rejected by Estrada, the
branch manager of Monte de Piedad bank, the latter told Macasieb to release PHP 29,750.00 from the
cash fund entrusted to him to fulfill the desire of the petitioner wherein the same issued two postdated
checks covering the same amount. However, upon depositing the check, the checks were dishonored
because the petitioner’s bank account was closed and was requested by Estrada to redeem the check after
attempts of demand to do the same. The petitioner was convicted in violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.

● Issue
W/n the petitioner is guilty in violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.

● Ruling
No, the petitioner is not guilty in violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. According to the Supreme
Court,Knowledge is an essential element for the accused to be charged in violation of BP 22. In this case,
it is required to prove that the accused was aware with her insufficiency of funds to be in violation of BP
22.