Professional Documents
Culture Documents
versus
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
The accused is being charged for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
The accused Henry Chao borrowed from the plaintiff P50,000, with 5%
interest, payable in five (5) equal monthly installments of P 12,500 on June 1,
2011. After the plaintiff gave the P50,000 cash in his house in Mandaluyong
City, the accused issued and signed five Negotiable Order of Withdrawal slips
and handed it over to the plaintiff.
1
B. WILLINGNESS TO ENTER INTO AMICABLE SETTLEMENT
C. ADMITTED FACTS
5. That the loan was obtained in behalf of Atlas Parts for payment of stocks
and the accused is authorized enter into loan agreement with the
complainant as its Manager;
7. That plaintiff orally demanded payment but the accused could not do
anything anymore because in the middle of June 2011, he resigned as
Manager.
2
4. That the accused actually and physically received the demand letter
even after he resigned and not anymore affiliated with Altlas Parts.
Whether or not this case can still be decided for being filed beyond the
prescriptive period.
Prescriptive Period
ACT NO. 3326
AN ACT TO ESTABLISH PERIODS OF PRESCRIPTION FOR VIOLATIONS
PENALIZED BY SPECIAL ACTS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES AND TO
PROVIDE WHEN PRESCRIPTION SHALL BEGIN TO RUN
3
issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank
for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check is
subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or
credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer,
without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment, shall be punished
by imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year
or by a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check
which fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos, or both such
fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who, having sufficient
funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a
check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full
amount of the check if presented within a period of ninety (90) days from the
date appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank.
4
Section 185. Check, defined. - A check is a bill of exchange drawn on a bank
payable on demand. Except as herein otherwise provided, the provisions of
this Act applicable to a bill of exchange payable on demand apply to a check.
[emphasis supplied]
5
opportunity to preclude a criminal prosecution. As there is insufficient proof
that petitioner received the notice of dishonor, the presumption that he had
knowledge of insufficiency of funds cannot arise. [emphasis supplied]
Ambito vs. People
G.R. No. 127327, February 13, 2009, 579 SCRA 69
The mere act of issuing· a worthless check - whether as a deposit, as a
guarantee or even as evidence of pre-existing debt - is malum prohibitum.
Under B.P. Blg. 22, the prosecution must prove not only that the accused
issued a check that was subsequently dishonored. It must also establish that
the accused was actually notified that the check was dishonored, and that he
or she failed, within five (5) banking days from receipt of the notice, to pay the
holder of the check the amount due thereon or to make arrangement for its
payment. Absent proof that the accused received such notice, a prosecution for
violation of the Bouncing Checks Law cannot prosper. [emphasis supplied]
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.
[emphasis supplied]
6
essential thereto and requisite in their consummation occur in one
municipality or territory, while some occur in another. In such cases, the court
wherein any of the crime's essential and material acts have been committed
maintains jurisdiction to try the case; it being understood that the first court
taking cognizance of the same excludes the other. Thus, a person charged with
a continuing or transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or
territory where the offense was in part committed. [emphasis supplied]
The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. 22 is the act of making and issuing
a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for
payment. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes. The
law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust
of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of
worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Because of its deleterious
effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by law. The law
punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an offense against
public order. [emphasis supplied]
7
F. RESERVATION
Defendant respectfully requests that trial dates be set during the pre-
trial conferences most convenient to this Honorable Court and to all the
parties.
Copy furnished: