Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Caras Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Charlie Bartolome
    68 views1 page
    Jane Caras y Solitario appealed her conviction of 15 counts of bouncing check violations, arguing she did not receive proper notification that the checks had bounced as required. The court agreed, finding that the absence of any evidence that Caras personally received notice of the check dishonors violated her right to due process. Prior cases established notice is required to give the accused the opportunity to pay the amounts before criminal charges are filed. As the prosecution failed to prove Caras received the required notice, the court found this was grounds for acquittal.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    15. Caras vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Jane Caras y Solitario appealed her conviction of 15 counts of bouncing check violations, arguing she did not receive proper notification that the checks had bounced as required. The court agreed, finding that the absence of any evidence that Caras personally received notice of the check dishonors violated her right to due process. Prior cases established notice is required to give the accused the opportunity to pay the amounts before criminal charges are filed. As the prosecution failed to prove Caras received the required notice, the court found this was grounds for acquittal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    68 views1 page

    Caras Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Charlie Bartolome
    Jane Caras y Solitario appealed her conviction of 15 counts of bouncing check violations, arguing she did not receive proper notification that the checks had bounced as required. The court agreed, finding that the absence of any evidence that Caras personally received notice of the check dishonors violated her right to due process. Prior cases established notice is required to give the accused the opportunity to pay the amounts before criminal charges are filed. As the prosecution failed to prove Caras received the required notice, the court found this was grounds for acquittal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    JANE CARAS y SOLITARIO

    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.

    You might also like