Professional Documents
Culture Documents
For: Violation
of B.P. 22
(Bouncing
Checks Law)
Versus
STEPHANIE MCMAHON,
Accused.
x-----------------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM
For the Defendant
COMES
NOW
THE
DEFENDANT,
through
the
undersigned
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Whether or not the Private Complainant has cause of action
2. Whether or not the acknowledgement receipt will be admissible
ARGUMENTS
1. The plaintiff has no cause of action in commencing the case against
the defendant.
2. The acknowledgement receipt should be given credence
DISCUSSION
1.
complainant that the account would be insufficient, and that he should first
go to her for the payment of the two crates since she will be holding the cash
for the payment of the 2 crates.
In the caseof Magno v. Court of Appeals ( GR 96132)wherein the court
states that knowledge of the payee of the insufficiency or lack of
does not have sufficient funds to cover the amount of such check
may operate to absolve the drawer from liability under BP
Blg. 22. However, it must be emphasized that in said cases, the
checks were drawn and issued in good faith and without intention on
the part of their respective drawers to apply said checks for account
or for value. In Magno vs. Court of Appeals, the rubber checks were
simply issued to cover a warranty deposit in a lease contract
returnable to the drawer upon the satisfactory completion of the
entire period of lease. The drawer did not benefit from the deposit
since the checks were used only as a deposit to serve as security for
the faithful performance of the drawers obligation as a lessee of an
equipment.
In the case of the defendant, the Checks Issued is only a security for the 2
crates that she had ordered to the private complainant and has no intention
of defrauding the latter.
2.
The
second
argument
is
related
to
the
first
since
the
By:
ATTY. MARY ROSE PAUS
No. 4590754
PTR O.R. No. 6978354. Feb.
7, 2015
EXPLANATION
In compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court,
personal service of copy of Trial Memorandum could not be effected except
by service through registered mail due to distance and personnel constraints.