SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244031. March 25, 2019.]
RONALDO R. SOLIMAN, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 25 March 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 244031 (Ronaldo R. Soliman v. People of the Philippines)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the April 17, 2018 Decision 2 and the January 15, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 38402 for failure of petitioner Ronaldo R. Soliman (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming his conviction for multiple counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), 4 otherwise known as the "Bouncing Checks Law."
As correctly ruled by the CA, all the elements 5 for violation of BP 22 are present in this case. Only petitioner's knowledge of the insufficiency of funds is disputed. 6 In relation thereto, the prosecution was able to prove, through testimonial evidence, that written notices of dishonor were personally sent to, and received by, petitioner as the drawer of the subject-checks. 7 Jurisprudence holds that the witness' testimony in court is sufficient proof of such fact. 8 Moreover, it should be emphasized that factual findings of the trial courts, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on this Court, and will generally not be reviewed on appeal, absent any of the recognized exceptions, 9 as in this case.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 10-20.
2.Id. at 25-36. Penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. with Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin, concurring.
3.Id. at 38-39.
4. Entitled "AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR DRAWING AND ISSUANCE OF A CHECK WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR CREDIT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on April 3, 1979.
5. "The elements of this crime are: (1) the accused makes, draws, or issues any check to apply to account or for value; (2) the accused knows 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; and (3) the 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." (People v. Flores, 426 Phil. 187, 198 [2002].)
6. See rollo, pp. 31-32.
7. See id. at 32-33.
8. See Resterio v. People, 695 Phil. 693, 708 (2012); Lim v. People, G.R. No. 224979, December 13, 2017.
9.Insular Investment and Trust Corporation v. Capital One Equities Corporation, 686 Phil. 819, 830-831 (2012); citations omitted.