Campos vs. People

A notice of dishonor sent through registered mail is not sufficiently proved by the mere presentation of registry return receipts without the authentication by affidavit of the mailers; however, the issuer's own judicial admission of having made payment arrangements after dishonor constitutes conclusive evidence of receipt of such notice, thereby triggering the presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds under Section 2 of B.P. 22.

Petitioner Ma. Rosario P. Campos was a borrower who obtained an installment loan from respondent First Women's Credit Corporation (FWCC), a credit corporation, in the amount of ₱50,000.00 on March 17, 1995. The loan was secured by postdated checks issued by Campos in favor of FWCC to cover the agreed installment payments. The prosecution arose under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, which penalizes the issuance of checks without sufficient funds and creates a presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds upon dishonor of the check, subject to the issuer's opportunity to pay or make arrangements within five banking days after receiving notice of dishonor.

On March 17, 1995, Ma. Rosario P. Campos obtained a loan of ₱50,000.00 from First Women's Credit Corporation (FWCC), payable on installments. To cover the agreed installment payments, Campos issued several postdated checks drawn against her Current Account No. 6005-05449-92 with BPI Family Bank-Head Office. Fourteen of these checks, each in the amount of ₱3,333.33 and dated from August 15, 1995 to February 28, 1996, totaling ₱46,666.62, were dishonored when presented for payment. The drawee bank declared the checks to be drawn against a "closed account."

After Campos failed to satisfy her outstanding obligation with FWCC despite demand, she was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasay City, Branch 48, with fourteen counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. Campos was arraigned but thereafter failed to attend court proceedings, resulting in her being tried in absentia. The prosecution presented a written copy of a demand letter and the corresponding registry return receipt to establish that a notice of dishonor had been sent to Campos by registered mail.

Campos, for her part, denied having received a notice of dishonor from FWCC. She likewise invoked good faith, asserting that she had made arrangements with FWCC for the payment of her obligation after the subject checks were dishonored. In support of this claim, she cited receipts dated January 13, 1996, February 29, 1996, April 22, 1998, and May 26, 1998, issued by FWCC for payments ranging from ₱2,500.00 to ₱15,700.00. She also blamed her former counsel for alleged negligence that led to her absence during trial. The MeTC credited the prosecution's evidence and convicted Campos on December 7, 1999. Both the RTC and the CA affirmed the conviction, giving rise to the present petition.

• Insufficiency of Proof of Notice of Dishonor: Campos argued that the prosecution failed to establish the second element of B.P. 22 — her knowledge at the time of issuance that she did not have sufficient funds — because she never received a written notice of dishonor from FWCC. She discredited the MeTC's reliance on a supposed notice sent through registered mail, contending that the mere presentation of a written copy of the letter and the registry return receipt was insufficient to prove actual receipt.
• Good Faith and Payment Arrangements: Campos maintained that her want of information regarding the dishonor of the checks and her subsequent arrangements for their payment were tantamount to good faith, warranting the exercise of the Court's equity powers to grant her relief.
• Negligence of Former Counsel: Campos attributed her failure to be present during trial to the alleged negligence of her former counsel, implying that her trial in absentia and consequent waiver of the right to present evidence should not be held against her.

• Sufficiency of Notice by Registered Mail: Whether a demand letter sent through registered mail is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of B.P. 22 as to knowledge of the fact of dishonor of the subject checks.
• Good Faith and Equity: Whether Campos' want of information of the fact of the checks' dishonor and her subsequent arrangements for their payment are tantamount to good faith so as to persuade the Supreme Court to exercise its equity powers.

• Sufficiency of Notice by Registered Mail: No, not by itself. The mere presentation of registry return receipts covering registered mail is insufficient to establish that written notices of dishonor were sent or served; authentication by affidavit of the mailers is necessary. However, Campos's own judicial admission that she made payment arrangements after dishonor confirmed her receipt of the notice, thereby satisfying the knowledge requirement.
• Good Faith and Equity: No. Campos's claim of good faith was belied by her failure to prove that she paid the amounts due or made arrangements for payment in full within five banking days after receiving notice, as required under Section 2 of B.P. 22. Her decision to be tried in absentia further waived her right to present evidence to substantiate her defense.

• Sufficiency of Notice by Registered Mail: The essential elements of a B.P. 22 violation are: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of a check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of 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. The first and third elements were undisputed. The second element, involving a state of mind difficult to establish, is addressed by Section 2 of B.P. 22, which creates a presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds upon dishonor of the check within ninety days from its date, unless the maker or drawer pays the amount due or makes arrangements for payment in full within five banking days after receiving notice of non-payment. While the Court acknowledged that the mere presentation of registry return receipts is insufficient to prove service of a notice of dishonor — authentication by affidavit of the mailers being necessary — Campos's own statement in her petition that she had evidence to show she made arrangements for payment after the dishonor of the checks constituted a judicial admission that she had received the required notice. She would not have entered into payment arrangements beginning January 1996 until May 1998 had she not received notice of dishonor and had no knowledge of the insufficiency of her funds and the dishonor of her checks.
• Good Faith and Equity: The presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds under Section 2 of B.P. 22 may be rebutted by paying the holder the amount due or making arrangements for payment in full within five banking days after receiving notice of dishonor. Campos failed to sufficiently disclose the terms of her alleged arrangement with FWCC or to establish that the same had been fully complied with so as to completely satisfy the amounts covered by the subject checks. The receipts she cited showed partial payments of varying amounts but did not prove full satisfaction of the obligation within the statutory period. Moreover, documents to prove her defense should have been presented before the MeTC during trial, yet Campos opted to be tried in absentia, thereby waiving her right to present evidence. Her attribution of negligence to her former counsel was unavailing, as it is settled that the negligence of counsel binds the client. Under these circumstances, no cogent reason existed to reverse the CA's affirmance of her conviction.

• Essential Elements of B.P. 22 Violation — The three essential elements are: (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 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 credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment. All three elements were found present in this case.
• Presumption of Knowledge of Insufficiency of Funds — Under Section 2 of B.P. 22, the making, drawing, and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds, when presented within ninety days from the date of the check, constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency, unless the maker or drawer pays the holder the amount due or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee within five banking days after receiving notice that the check has not been paid. The presumption was triggered upon dishonor and was not rebutted by Campos.
• Proof of Service of Notice of Dishonor by Registered Mail — The mere presentation of registry return receipts covering registered mail is not sufficient to establish that written notices of dishonor were sent to or served on issuers of checks. Authentication by affidavit of the mailers is necessary for service by registered mail to be regarded as clear proof of the giving of notices of dishonor and to predicate the existence of the second element of the offense. This requirement was not met by the prosecution, but the defect was cured by Campos's judicial admission.
• Negligence of Counsel Binds the Client — The negligence of counsel binds his or her client. Campos's attribution of her absence during trial to her former counsel's alleged negligence did not excuse her failure to present evidence or warrant reversal of her conviction.

• "The mere presentation of registry return receipts that cover registered mail was not sufficient to establish that written notices of dishonor had been sent to or served on issuers of checks. The authentication by affidavit of the mailers was necessary in order for service by registered mail to be regarded as clear proof of the giving of notices of dishonor and to predicate the existence of the second element of the offense." — This passage articulates the doctrinal requirement for proving service of notice of dishonor by registered mail in B.P. 22 cases, clarifying that registry return receipts alone are insufficient without authenticated affidavits from the mailers.
• "Campos would not have entered into the alleged arrangements beginning January 1996 until May 1998 if she had not received a notice of dishonor from her creditor, and had no knowledge of the insufficiency of her funds with the bank and the dishonor of her checks." — This is the ratio decidendi by which the Court circumvented the prosecution's evidentiary deficiency on proof of notice, using Campos's own judicial admission as conclusive evidence of receipt.
• "She failed to sufficiently disclose the terms of her alleged arrangement with FWCC, and to establish that the same had been fully complied with so as to completely satisfy the amounts covered by the subject checks." — This passage defines the burden on the accused to rebut the presumption of knowledge under Section 2 of B.P. 22: full payment or a fully complied-with arrangement within five banking days, not merely partial or undocumented payments.

• San Mateo vs. People, G.R. No. 200090, March 6, 2013 — Cited as the source of the essential elements of a B.P. 22 violation; followed as controlling formulation.
• Resterio vs. People, G.R. No. 177438, September 24, 2012 — Cited for the proposition that proof of receipt of notice of dishonor is important to establish the issuer's awareness of insufficiency of funds, and specifically for the rule that mere presentation of registry return receipts is insufficient without authentication by affidavit of the mailers; followed.
• Alferez vs. People, G.R. No. 182301, January 31, 2011 — Cited for the importance of proof of receipt of notice of dishonor and for the presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds under Section 2 of B.P. 22; followed.
• Moster vs. People, 569 Phil. 616 (2008) — Cited for the importance of proof of receipt of notice of dishonor in B.P. 22 cases; followed.

• Section 2, Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 — Creates the presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds: the making, drawing, and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds, when presented within ninety days from the date of the check, constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency, unless the maker or drawer pays the holder the amount due or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee within five banking days after receiving notice that the check has not been paid. Applied to establish that Campos's failure to pay or make full arrangements within five banking days of receiving notice sustained the presumption against her.

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Diosdado M. Peralta, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., and Francis H. Jardeleza concurred. No separate concurring opinions were written.