Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Caras Vs CA
Caras Vs CA
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Facts: Jane Caras y Solitario was found guilty of 15 counts of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing
Checks Law) violations. Caras appealed raising as an issue the allegation that she was not properly
notified of the dishonor of her checks. She maintains that the prosecution failed to show that she
received the notices of dishonor purportedly sent to her. She points out that no return card or
acknowledgment receipt for the first demand letter was presented in evidence. While there was a return
card attached to the second demand letter, this was not marked nor offered in evidence, and hence must
be ignored.
Issue: Is she correct?
Ruling:
Yes, Caras is correct in stating that the failure to notify her was a violation of due process.
The absence of any notice of dishonor personally sent to and received by the accused is a
violation of the petitioner’s right to due process. This is in effect our ruling in Lao vs. Court of Appeals,
where we held:
It has been observed that the State, under this statute, actually offers the violator "a compromise
by allowing him to perform some act which operates to preempt the criminal action, and if he opts to
perform it the action is abated". This was also compared "to certain laws" allowing illegal possessors of
firearms a certain period of time to surrender the illegally possessed firearms to the Government,
without incurring any criminal liability". In this light, the full payment of the amount appearing in the
check within five banking days from notice of dishonor is a "complete defense". The absence of a
notice of dishonor necessarily deprives an accused an opportunity to preclude a criminal
prosecution. Accordingly, procedural due process clearly enjoins that a notice of dishonor be
actually served on petitioner. Petitioner has a right to demand - and the basic postulates of
fairness require - that the notice of dishonor be actually sent to and received by her to afford her
the opportunity to avert prosecution under B.P. Blg. 22.
Absent a clear showing that petitioner actually knew of the dishonor of her checks and was given
the opportunity to make arrangements for payment as provided for under the law, we cannot with moral
certainty convict her of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. The failure of the prosecution to prove that
petitioner was given the requisite notice of dishonor is a clear ground for her acquittal. Discussion
of the other assigned errors need no longer detain us.