FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 214510. September 14, 2021.]
STEVE YU AND JOYNALIZ1P. AQUI, petitioners, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 214510 — Steve Yu and JoynalizP. Aqui v. Peopleof the Philippines
Preliminarily, as a rule, questions of fact cannot be raised in a petition brought under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court because the Court is not a trier of facts. To be sure, the questions whether petitioners were afforded their right to due process, whether they had knowledge of the insufficient funds at the time they issued the checks, and whether they were notified of such insufficient funds and the dishonor of the checks — are all factual in nature which are not proper in Rule 45 petitions.
Not being a trier of facts, the Court will not review the factual findings of the courts below, much less, recalibrate or weigh the evidence all over again. More, the trial court's factual findings which both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals affirmed are final, binding and conclusive on the parties and upon this Court when supported by the evidence on record, as in this case.
Indubitably, therefore, the petition should be denied outright.
But even on the merits, the petition must fail.
No denial of due process
Records bear that petitioners Steve Yu and Joynaliz P. Aqui were afforded the opportunity to be heard. In fact, the hearing of September 19, 2011 was scheduled precisely for the reception of their evidence, albeit, their counsel failed to attend the hearing, sans any motion to cancel or postpone the hearing. Accordingly, the defense was deemed to have waived its right to present evidence. Even then, the trial court still gave petitioners yet another chance to present their side through the submission of their formal offer of evidence. Petitioners failed to comply.
Evidently, petitioners were given reasonable opportunity to be heard, but they wasted this opportunity through their own fault or choice. So long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his or her interests in due course, he or she cannot claim denial of due process. 2
Proof of knowledge of insufficiency of funds
Records bear the twin demand letters dated September 1, 2008 and September 26, 2008 sent to, and received by, petitioners. The demand letters each contained two things: first, notice to petitioners that subject checks were dishonored upon presentment on their respective due dates due to insufficiency of funds, stop payment, or account closed; and second, a demand to pay or make arrangements for payment of the checks within five (5) days receipt of notice. As it turned out, petitioners failed to pay or make arrangements for payment. HSAcaE
Valid notice of dishonor
There is no particular form required for a notice of dishonor. Case law instructs that it need only be in writing and may be sent either by the offended party or the drawee bank. A mere oral notice will not suffice and the lack of a written notice of dishonor is fatal for the prosecution. 3
It is a matter of record that petitioners never denied receipt of the twin demand letters informing them about the dishonor of the subject checks and requiring them to pay or make arrangements for payment within five (5) days from notice. As stated, they failed to pay or make arrangements for payment.
All told, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the offense charged, viz.: (1) petitioners made, drew, or issued subject checks as payment for the supplies they bought on credit from complainant; (2) the checks were subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit; or it would have been dishonored for the same reason had not petitioners as drawers, without any valid reasons, ordered the bank to stop payment; and (3) they knew at the time of the issuance that they did not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, drawee bank for payment of the checks in full upon their presentment on their due dates. 4
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated September 30, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 125818 is AFFIRMED.
Steve Yu is GUILTY of Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 in Criminal Case Nos. 358025 to 358026. He is sentenced to pay the FINE of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) in each case with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Joynaliz P. Aqui is GUILTY of Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 in Criminal Case Nos. 358025 to 358029. She is sentenced to pay the FINE of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) in each case with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Spelled Jonaliz in some parts of the rollo.
2. See Gannapao v. Civil Service Commission, 665 Phil. 60, 68 (2011). (citation omitted)
3. See Alburo v. People, 792 Phil. 876, 892 (2016).
4. See Lim v. People, 822 Phil. 839, 860 (2017).