emt ‘ OuESHS Republic of the Philippines National Capital Judicial Region METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT W ca 25 PZNG Branch LXXIl (72) City of Pasig PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, -versus- Crim. Case No. 114148-49 For: Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 MAUREEN C. DE VENECIA, a Who ORDER Upon call of these cases for promulgation of a no parties appeared. “30 }- Let the judgment be rendered by entering the same in the Boo! of Judgment of this court and copies thereof be furnished the private’ ( prosecutor, the complainant as well as the accused. In view of the judgment of conviction rendered by this court against the accused, let a warrant of arrest be issued against her for the execution of the service cf sentence. Her right to appeal the decision of this court is hereby considered waived for his failure to appear in today's promulgation of judgment. SO ORDERED. City of Pasig, Metro Manila. 03 June 2019. Han, ROLANDO A. DE GUZMAN JR. Presiding Judge Copy furnished: Maureen C. De Venecia Block 2 Lot 1 Roxas Bille Subd., Pasong Tamo, Tandang Sora, Quezon City Lydia G. Kuo #16 Pepper Street, Valle Verde 5, Pasig City Atty. Lorelee Margaret T. Granado clo Quasha Ancheta Petia & Nolasco, 6" Floor, Don Pabio Building, 114 Amorsolo Stret, Legaspi Village, City of MakatiO Republic of the Philippines National Capital Judicial Region ay 4.471256 METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT Branch 72, City of Pasig lil neceaye pe PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ae ? / Crim. Case No. 114148-49 ~versus- For: Violation of Batas _///v Pambansa Bilang 22 MAUREEN DE VENECIA Y CASTRO, Accused. Seca CONSOLIDATED JUDGMENT These cases were tried jointly as these are a series of offenses of identical character and founded on the same set of facts involving the samc parties: the accused, the peuple, and the private complainant. On 22 February 2011, the prosecution filed two (2) separate Informations for Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law, against accused Maureen de Venecia y Castro (‘de Venecia’: for brevity) for allegedly having issued two Bank of the Philippine Islands (‘BPP or “Bank? for brevity) rubber checks in favor of private complainant Lydia Kuo (‘Kuo” for brevity), to wit: Check No. Date Amount 0335581 15 March 2010 Php476,700.00 0335576 30 March 2010 Php928,000.00 On O1 December 2011, accused de Venecia upon her arraignment where she was duly assisted by her counsel de officio entered a plea of “Not Guilty” to the charges. The prosecution and the accused also stipulated on the identity of the accused as the same person charged in the Information and the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The parties were then directed to appearconsouareo suS Aer : Y CRIM. CASE No. 124148-49 PP v.de Veneci Page No. 2 = before the Philippine Mediation Center for mediation proceedings.! No amicable settlement however was reached by the parties. During the preliminary conference, the parties marked their respective evidence and the Court set the case for trial? On 09 August 2016, the Court issued a warrant of arrest against accused de Venecia for her continued failure to appear. EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION On 09 October 2012, the prosecution presented the private complainant, Lydia Kuo, as its witness. In her testimony, she identified and confirmed the contents of her Complaint-Affidavit? and her Reply-Affidavit, together with the attachments to said documents, that is, the two (2) BPI checks‘, and a purchase order with serial number #0247 dated 19 August 2010.5 In her complaint-affidavit and reply-affidavit which were offered by the prosecution as her direct testimony, Kuo recounted the circumstances regarding the two checks issued to her by the accused. According to her, sometime iu February 2010, she bought from accused de Venecia some cooking wares amounting to PhP1,414,700 because the accused convinced her that she (Kuo) could re-sell said items. Sometime the following month, de Venecia bought back said cocking wares from her so that she could sell them to other buyers. De Venecia then went to her residence in Valle Verde 6, Pasig and took the items. By way of payment, de Venecia issued to Kuo the two BPI checks subject of these cases with the assurance that both checks are funded. On 24 May 2010, Kuo deposited and presented for payment said checks at China Bank-Ortigas Branch but were dishonored because the account was already closed (ACCOUNT CLOSED) as stamped on the checks. During cross-examination, however, Kuo admitted that the reason was that there were insufficient finds on the account or DAIF.6 She immediately informed de Venecia of the dishonor and the latter promised her that she would pay her within a week. No payment though was made by the accused. * order dated 01 December 2011 ? Preliminary Conference Order dated 10 May 2012 9 exhibit “A” “exhibits “C” with sub-markings 5 Exhibit “€” TSN, 09 October 2022, p. 6CO consouoareo suSCaent CRIM. CASE No, 114148-49 PP vde Venecia . Page No. 3 : x Consequently, Kuo instructed her counsel to send a demand letter to the accused. In the affidavit of service executed by one Charlie B. Hernandez (‘Hemandez” for brevity), it was stated therein that he went to the address of de Venecia to personally serve the demand letter dated 13 July 2010 but the household helper did not accept the letter because she was instructed not to receive it. The complainant's counsel then tried to send the demand letter by registered mail but the letter was returned by the post office with a notation “refused to receive.” After the prosecution rested, the accused filed through counsel on 09 December 2013 her Demurrer to Evidence with Leave of Court where she.prayed for the acquittal of the accused due to the failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. According to the accused, the prosecution failed to prove the fact of receipt by the accused of the demand letter or notice of dishonor and that there was no notice of dishonor from the very beginning which is one of the elements of the crime of BP Blg, 22. It was also argued that the person who allegedly sent the demand letrer, Hernandez, was not presented in court. Because of these, the prosecution failed to prove accused de Venecia’s knowledge of insufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank at the time of issuance of check. In its Comment/Opposition’ (To the Demurrer to Evidence with Leave of Court), the prosecuition prayed for the denial of the demurrer upon the ground that the accused admitted that she knew about the dishonor of the checks. It was also emphasized that the accused agreed to dispense with the testimony of Hernandez and that the parties stipulated that Hernandez personally went to the residence of the accused to serve the demand letter and that he caused the sending of the demand letter by registered mail. In an Order dated 15 October 2014, the Court denied the Demurrer to Evidence and ruled, inter alia, that the prosecution succeeded in establishing the second element of the crime of BP Blg. 22 which is the service of the notice of dishonor and the receipt thereof by the accused. This element was proved through the presentation not only of the, demand letter but also of the registry return receipt showing that it was sent to the addressee. Thus, the presumption of knowledge by the accused on the fact of dishonor has come into play and, for the presumption to be destroyed, it is incumbent upon the defense to adduce evidence to the contrary to warrant her acquittal.Oo consouarep uf aewr CRIM. CASE No. 114148-49 PP vde Venecia Page No. 4 EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE As the accused has been issued a warrant of arrest against her and has remained at large, her right to adduce evidence was deemed waived and was ordered to be tried in absentia.’ ISSUE For determination is whether or not accused de Venecia is guilty of the crime of Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. THE COURT’S RULING In cases of violations of the Bouncing Checks Law or BP Blg. 22, the prosecution must prove all the elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. As enunciated in the case of Azarcon v People of the Philippines®, the Supreme Court ruled: “Liability for violaticn of B.P. 22 attaches when the prosecution establishes proof beyond reasonable doubt of the existence of the following elements: 1. The accused makes, draws or issues any check to apply to account or for value; 2. The accused knows at the time of the issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bark for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and 3. The check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or it would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.” Undoubtedly, the accused issued the. two BPI checks. The prosecution sufficiently established that accused de Venecia drew and issued the same in favor of the complainant Kuo as payment for the cooking wares that de Venecia bought back from Kuo. The fact of dishonor of the subject checks, which is also an element of the offense, was also established 7 Order dated 24 August 2018 °G.R. No. 185906, lune 29, 2010, ” Supra citing Rule v. People, G.R. No. 160893, November 18, 2005, 475 SCRA 476, 489.consouoaTeo suScaent UV CRIM. CASE No. 114148-49 PP vde Venecia Page No. 5 sian x by the prosecution. Such dishonor was not only apparent from the stamp markings on the checks but was clearly identified and testified on by Kuo at the witness stand. For liability, however, to attach under B.P. Blg. 22, it is not enough that the prosecution establishes that a check was issued and that the same was subsequently dishonored. The prosecution must also prove the second element, that is, it must further show that the issuer, at the time of the check’s issuance, had knowledge that she did not have enough funds or credit in the bank for payment thereof upon its presentment.!° But considering that knowledge involves a state of mind that is hard <0 delve into, Section 2 of B.P. 22 creates a presumption juris tantum that the second element prima facie exists when the first and the second elements of the offense are present.!! But this 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 arrangement for its payment.”!2 In instant case, the prosecution has duly established the second element of the crime of BP Big. 22 which is the service of the notice of dishonor and the receipt thereof by the accused. The prosecution proved this by presenting the demand letter and the registry 'return receipt showing that it was sent to the addressee who however refused to receive the same. In addition, the testimony of Kuo that de Venecia had prior notice of the dishonor and that the latter promised to pay her has remained uncontroverted. The Court thus finds no need to disturb the findings as contained in the Order denying the demurrer to evidence. The prosecution having established the facts of sending and receipt of the subject notice of dishonor, it can safely be assumed that the presumption now comes into play. Such presumption, however, is not a conclusive presumption that forecloses or precludes the presentation of evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, it is for the defense to refute that presumption or that accused did not actually receive the same through the evidence it would adduce. This however the accused failed to do as her right to present defense was Ting, et. al. vCA, G.R. No. 140665, November 13, 2000, * Magno v. People, 210 SCRA 471. "Ting et. al, v CA, Supra,CONSOLIDATED suKcoene UV CRIM, CASE No. 114148-49 PP vde Venecia Page No. 6 x —* deemed waived because of her continued failure to appear in Court. As it stands now, the court is convinced with moral certainty that the prosecution has proved all the elements of Violation of B.P. Blg. 22 for which the accused is solely liable criminally. The prima facie presumption has therefore ripened into one that it is conclusive, for which reason a judgment against the accused must perfunctorily be rendered. As for the civil aspect of these cases, the Court finds the accused liable to the extent of the value of the checks issued. It must be emphasized that the accused failed to dispute the obligation that he incurred. As a final note, jurisprudence has repeatedly declared that flight is an indication of guilt. The flight of an accused, in the absence of a credible explanation, would be a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be established for a truly innocent person would normally grasp the first available opportunity to defend himself and to assert his innocence.'? Interestingly enough, accused de Venecia stopped appearing im this case after her demurrer to evidence was denied. Inasmuch that there was neither any proof nor allegation by the prosecution that the accused is not a first-time offender, it is this court’s belief that justice would be best served if the accused would simply be fined instead of being imprisoned. This will allow her to find ways to settle her obligation to the complainant and to pay the fine that will be imposed on him. WHEREFORE, viewed from the foregoing premises, the court hereby renders judgment finding accused Maureen C. de Venecia GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg, 22 as charged under the two Informations and hereby sentences her to pay a fine of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP200,000.00) for each count, with subsidiary imprisonment in both in case of insolvency. Maureen C. de Venecia is likewise ordered to indemnify Lydia Kuo an amount equal to the full face value of the subject checks plus legal interest of six (6%) percent per annum from ® G.R, No. 138929, 02 October 2001consoupaTep sus iewt oO CRIM. CASE No. 114148-49 paves rene ; (WHEREFORE, viewed from the foregoing premises, the court hereby renders judgment finding accused Maureen C. de Venecia GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 as charged under the two Informations and hereby sentences her to pay a fine of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP200,000.00) for each count, with subsidiary imprisonment in both in case of insolvency. Maureen C. de Venecia is likewise ordered to indemnify Lydia Kuo an amount equal to the full face value of the subject checks plus legal interest of six (6%) percent per annum from) the filing of these cases in Court until finality of judgment, and six percent (6%) per annum from finality of judgment until the same is fully paid. SO ORDERED. 08 March 2019, City of Pasig Weir, ( ROLANDO A. DE GUZMAN JR. Presiding Judge Copy furnished: Maureen C. De Venecia Block 2 Lot 1 Roxas Bille Subd., Pasong Tamo, Tandang Sora, Quezon City Lydia G. Kuo #16 Pepper Street, Valle Verde 5, Pasig City - Lorelee Margarct T. Granado ¢/0 Quasha Ancheta Pefia & Nolasco, 64 Floor, Don Pablo Building, 114 Amorsolo Stret, Legaspi Village, City of Makati (radj