Republic of the Philippines

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 1
Manila City

PEOPLE OF CRIM. CASE NO. 132,121-01

THE PHILIPPINES,
Complainant,

-versus-

HENRY CHAO, FOR: VIOL. OF B.P. BLG. 22

Accused.

x-----------------------------------x

ACCUSED MEMORANDUM
COMES NOW, Accused HENRY CHAO by counsel unto this
Honorable Court, respectfully aver:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On June 1, 2011, Accused Henry Chao (Accused Chao for

brevity), Manager of Atlas Parts, borrowed the amount of Fifty
Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos, with five (5%) monthly interest,
payable in five (5) equal monthly installments of Twelve
Thousand Five Hundred (P12,500.00) Pesos, from Private
Complainant Ben Que (Private Complainant Que for brevity) to
be used to pay their stocks;

2. Thereafter, as per agreement between the parties, Accused

Chao issued five (5) checks to Private Complainant Que;

3. However, upon the respective due dates of the five (5) checks
issued by Accused Chao, Private Complainant Que deposited
each of them to his Savings Account at BOD Bank, Manila, but
all of them were dishonored by the drawee, Alloy Bank, for the
reason of “Account Closed”;

4. On January 2, 2012, Private Complainant Que sent demand

letter to Accused Chao through registered mail, giving him five

1
 (5) days to make good of his promise; nevertheless, the said
obligation remained unpaid;
ISSUES

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT HAS

JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER.

II. WHETHER OR NOT THE PROSECUTION WAS ABLE TO

PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THE ELEMENTS
OF BATAS PAMBANSAN BLG. 22.

DISCUSSION

AS TO THE FIRST ISSUE

5. The Honorable Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine

the instant case;

6. In the case of Isip vs. People, G.R. No. 170298, June 26, 2007,
the Supreme Court held, to wit:

The concept of venue of actions in criminal cases,

unlike in civil cases, is jurisdictional. The place where
the crime was committed determines not only the
venue of the action but is an essential element of
jurisdiction. It is a fundamental rule that for
jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases,
the offense should have been committed or any one
of its essential ingredients should have taken place
within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Territorial
jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the
court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the
offense allegedly committed therein by the accused.
Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person
charged with an offense allegedly committed outside
of that limited territory. Furthermore, the jurisdiction
of a court over the criminal case is determined by the
allegations in the complaint or information. And once
it is so shown, the court may validly take cognizance
of the case. However, if the evidence adduced during
the trial shows that the offense was committed
somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action
for want of jurisdiction.

2
7. In the instant case, it was filed before this Honorable Court, in
Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. The issuance of Accused
Chao of the five (5) checks was at the principal residence of
Private Complainant Que in Mandaluyong City and not in the City
of Manila;

8. Thus, the offense was commited at Mandaluyong City and not in

Manila City;

9. In view thereof, the Honorable Court should dismiss the case for
lack of jurisdiction as the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Mandaluyong City has jurisdiction over the instant case.

AS TO THE SECOND ISSUE

10. Section 35 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, reads to wit:

Section 35. When to make offer. — As regards the

testimony of a witness, the offer must be made at
the time the witness is called to testify.

xxx

11. During the presentation of prosecution’s evidence, the

Prosecution failed to offer the testimony of Private Complainant
Que. The Transcript of Stenographic Notes reads, to wit:

xxx

P.Prosecutor : We are calling to the witness

stand, the complainant, Mr.
Ben Que, who will prove the
commission of the offense.

xxx

12. Thus, the Prosecution failed to prove the entirety of its case. It is
an elementary rule in evidence that evidences that are not
offered is considered as no evidence at all. Section 34 of Rule
132 of the Rules of Court reads, to wit:

Section 34. Offer of evidence. — The court shall

consider no evidence which has not been formally
offered. The purpose for which the evidence is
offered must be specified.

3
13. Assuming without admitting that the Prosecution was able to
prove the entirety of its case, the Prosecution failed to prove
beyond reasonable doubt the elements of Batas Pambansa Blg.
22;

14. Section 1 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 reads, to wit:

“Section 1. Checks without sufficient funds. – Any

person who makes or draws and issues any check to
apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of
issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such
check in full upon its presentment, which check is
subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been
dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer,
without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop
payment, shall be punished by imprisonment of not
less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year
or by a fine of not less than but not more than double
the amount of the check which fine shall in no case
exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos, or both such
fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.”
(Underscoring Supplied ours for emphasis)

15. That the elements of the above-quoted offense are the following:

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 bank 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.

16. Section 2 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 reads, to wit:

‘’Section. 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient

funds. – The making, drawing and issuance of a
check payment of which is refused by the drawee

4
 because of insufficient funds in or credit with such
bank, when presented within ninety (90) days from
the date of the check, shall be prima facie evidence
of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit
unless such maker or drawer pays the holder
thereof the amount due thereon, or makes
arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of
such check within five (5) banking days after
receiving notice that such check has not been paid
by the drawee.’’

17. In order for the Prosecution to prove a prima facie presumption

that Accused Chao knew that at the time of the issuance of the
five (5) checks that he does not have sufficient funds in, or credit
with, the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon
its presentment, a notice of dishonor must be received by
Accused Chao;

18. In the case at bar, the Prosecution failed to prove that Accused
Chao indeed received the letter sent by them last January 2,
2012. Private Complainant Que merely presumed that Accused
Chao received the said letter. His testimony reads, to wit:

xxx

D. Counsel : Regarding the demand letter

that you allegedly sent to
accused, do you have the
registry return card showing
that accused received the
letter?

Witness : No, sir. But I have the

registry receipt. Since the
letter was not returned to
sender, it is presumed that it
was received by the
addressee.

xxx

19. The Prosecution has the burden of proving that the accused
received the notice of dishonor in B.P. 22 cases. In the case of
Alferez vs. People, G.R. No. 182301, Januray 31, 2011, the
Supreme Court held, to wit:

5
 In this case, the prosecution merely presented a copy
of the demand letter, together with the registry receipt
and the return card, allegedly sent to petitioner.
However, there was no attempt to authenticate or
identify the signature on the registry return card.
Receipts for registered letters and return receipts do
not by themselves prove receipt; they must be
properly authenticated to serve as proof of receipt of
the letter, claimed to be a notice of dishonor. To be
sure, the presentation of the registry card with an
unauthenticated signature, does not meet the
required proof beyond reasonable doubt that
petitioner received such notice. It is not enough for
the prosecution to prove that a notice of dishonor was
sent to the drawee of the check. The prosecution
must also prove actual receipt of said notice,
because the fact of service provided for in the law is
reckoned from receipt of such notice of dishonor by
the drawee of the check. The burden of proving
notice rests upon the party asserting its existence.
Ordinarily, preponderance of evidence is sufficient to
prove notice. In criminal cases, however, the
quantum of proof required is proof beyond
reasonable doubt. Hence, for B.P. Blg. 22 cases,
there should be clear proof of notice. Moreover, for
notice by mail, it must appear that the same was
served on the addressee or a duly authorized agent
of the addressee. From the registry receipt alone, it
is possible that petitioner or his authorized agent did
receive the demand letter. Possibilities, however,
cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. The
consistent rule is that penal statutes have to be
construed strictly against the State and liberally in
favor of the accused. The absence of a notice of
dishonor necessarily deprives the accused an
opportunity to preclude a criminal prosecution. As
there is insufficient proof that petitioner received the
notice of dishonor, the presumption that he had
knowledge of insufficiency of funds cannot arise.

20. Ergo, the Prosecution failed to prove that Accused Chao knows
at the time of the issuance that he does not have sufficient funds
in, or credit with, the drawee bank for the payment of the check
in full upon its presentment;

6
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Court to DISMISS the case for failure of the prosecution
to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Other relief, just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Assisted by:
xxx

COPY FURNISHED/EXPLANATION:

CLERK OF COURT
METC – Branch 1
Manila

CITY PROSECUTORS OFFICE

Manila

BEN QUE
Private Complainant
Mandaluyong City

Service and filing was made through registered mail due to

distance and lack of personnel to effect personal service.

xxx