SUMMARY OF ADMITTED FACTS AND

PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS

The accused admits to the following:

1. The accused borrowed from the complainant the amount of P50,000 with 5°/o monthly
interest, payable in five (5) equal monthly installments of P 12,500.00.
2. On June 1, 2011, the accused issued 5 post-dated Negotiable Order of Withdrawal slips
payable to Mr. Ben Que in consideration of the loan acquired.
3. The NOW account was owned by Atlas Parts.
4. 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 itsManager.
5. The accused had resigned as Manager of the Atlas Parts sometime in the middle of June
2011.

The accused denies the following:

1. That he received a copy of the demand letter of the complainant.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not there is sufficient proof that the accused duly received the demand letter
sent by the complainant through a registered mail.
2. Whether or not the accused was given due notice of dishonor due to account closed.

APPLICABLE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE

Section 2 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 states the following:

SEC. 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. – The making, drawing and

issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient
funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within ninety (90) days from the date
of the check, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds
or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon,
or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within five (5)
banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.
 Moreover, in the case of Resterio v. People of Philippines (G.R. No. 177438), jurisprudence
provides that for the presumption in aforecited provision to arise, the prosecution must prove the
following: “(a) the check is presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check; (b) the
drawer or maker of the check receives notice that such check has not been paid by the
drawee; and (c) the drawer or maker of the check fails to pay the holder of the check the amount
due thereon, or make arrangements for payment in full within five (5) banking days after receiving
notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee. In other words, the presumption is brought
into existence only after it is proved that the issuer had received a notice of dishonor and that
within five days from receipt thereof, he failed to pay the amount of the check or to make
arrangements for its payment. The presumption or prima facie evidence as provided in this section
cannot arise, if such notice of nonpayment by the drawee bank is not sent to the maker or drawer,
or if there is no proof as to when such notice was received by the drawer, since there would simply
be no way of reckoning the crucial 5-day period.” (emphasis supplied)

A notice of dishonor received by the maker or drawer of the check is thus indispensable
before a conviction can ensue. The notice of dishonor may be sent by the offended party or the
drawee bank. The notice must be in writing. A mere oral notice to pay a dishonored check will
not suffice. The lack of a written notice is fatal for the prosecution.

In addition, in this case of Alferez vs. People (G.R. No. 182301, January 31, 2011, 641
SCRA 116) presentation of a copy of the demand letter, together with the registry receipt and the
return card allegedly sent to petitioner is insufficient. Receipts for registered letters and return
receipts do not by themselves prove receipt; they must be properly authenticated to serve as
proof of receipt of the letter, claimed to be a notice of dishonor. To be sure, the presentation of
the registry card with an unauthenticated signature, does not meet the required proof beyond
reasonable doubt that petitioner received such notice. It is not enough for the prosecution to
prove that a notice of dishonor was sent to the drawee of the check. The prosecution must also
prove actual receipt of said notice, because the fact of service provided for in the law is reckoned
from receipt of such notice of dishonor by the drawee of the check.