Domagsang Vs. Court of Appeals

Will a verbal notice of dishonor or demand to pay enough to convict a person for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law)?

The facts of the case are as follows: Josephine Domagsang obtained a loan from Ignacio Garcia in the amount of P573,800.00. In consideration of the loan, Domagsang issued eighteen (18) postdated checks to Ignacio. When presented for payment, the said checks bounced for the reasons "Account Closed". Ignacio demanded payment by calling up Domagsang at her office. However, Domagsang failed to pay. Both the RTC and Court of Appeals convicted Domagsang of the crime. The latter appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that Although Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 does state that the notice of dishonor be in writing, Section 3 states that where there are no sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank, such fact shall always be explicitly stated in the notice of dishonor or refusal. A mere oral notice or demand to pay would appear to be insufficient for conviction under the law. Both the spirit and letter of the Bouncing Checks Law require for the act to be punished thereunder not only that the accused issued a check that is dishonored, but that likewise the accused has actually been notified in writing of the fact of dishonor. The consistent rule is that penal statutes have to be construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused. Domagsang was acquitted of the crime. However, she was ordered to pay Ignacio the total face value of the dishonored checks as it was established that she failed to pay her debt.