Josephine Domagsang vs. CA (G.R. No. 139292, 5 December 2000)
Josephine Domagsang vs. CA (G.R. No. 139292, 5 December 2000)
CASE DIGESTS
Special Penal Laws
CENTRO ESCOLAR UNIVERSITY
A.Y. 2015-2016
CASE DIGESTS
Special Penal Laws
CENTRO ESCOLAR UNIVERSITY
A.Y. 2015-2016
no sufficient funds in or credit with such bank for the payment in full of such check, if such be the
fact.
ISSUES AND HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT
Whether Garcia's alleged verbal demand of payment to Domagsang was sufficient to convict of
violating the Anti-Bouncing Checks Law and that written notice of dishonor is required for such
conviction?
The lower courts and Garcia argued that Domagsang was properly informed of the dishonored checks
when he called her in her office to demand payment and informed her about the dishonor of the checks
she issued. Meanwhile, petitioner Domagsang argued that there was absence lack of a proper written
notice of dishonor of the check which cause insufficiency for her conviction of charges of issuing a
dishonored check due to a closed account.
The Court agreed with Domagsang's argument and held that Garcia's verbal demand and notice through
a phone call proved fatal to his case, as sec. 3 of BP 22 requires him to issue a written notice of the
dishonored checks due to accounts which were closed or had insufficient funds. Further, it was also
held that absence of a notice of dishonor necessarily deprives an accused opportunity to preclude
criminal prosecution. Accordingly, procedural due process clearly enjoins that a notice of dishonor be
actually served, as she has right to demand (on ground of fair play) to require that the notice of
dishonor be actually sent to and received by her to afford her opportunity to avert prosecution under BP
22.
/archibald.manansala
ARCHIBALD JOSE T. MANANSALA
Juris Doctor 3rd Year