FACTS: Clemenza issued a
check to Don Barzini in payment for some prior obligations of the family.
However when Don Barzini deposited the check in the bank, the same bounced due
to insufficient funds. Affronted, Don Barzini wanted to send Clemenza to go
sleep with the fishes, but his consigliere prevailed upon him to file a case in
for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 instead, in order to preserve peace
between their families. Don Barzini assented but insisted that the case be
filed right away.
(1) the making, drawing,
and issuance of any check to apply on account or for value;
(2) the knowledge of the
maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he 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 subsequent
dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit,
or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause,
ordered the bank to stop payment.
The first and last elements are relatively easier to
establish as compared to the second element, which is a state of mind of the
accused. It is difficult to prove that the issuer of the bounced check knows
that he does not have sufficient funds for the payment of the check in full
upon its presentment.
Hence, Section 2 of B.P.
Blg. 22 creates a presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds under the
following circumstances:
Sec.
2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. — The making,
drawing, and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee
because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when presented
within ninety 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.