Help me weigh in on this…
In a BP 22 case, if the prosecution fails to present an authorized bank representative to testify that the checks were presented to the bank and that the same were subsequently dishonored, I am of a view that this should lead to the acquittal of the accused.
The essential elements of the offense of violation of BP 22 are the following:
(1) The making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value;
(2) The knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue there were no sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment; and
(3) The dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or the dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the drawee bank to stop payment (Resterio v. People, G.R. No. 177438, September 24, 2012, 681 SCRA 592, 596-597).
Who dishonors the checks? It is the bank, right?
Without the bank representative being presented as a prosecution witness, the third element cannot be established.
I just can imagine a trigger happy complainant conveniently having a stamp made along Recto and marks/stamps each check issued to him as dishonored without actually presenting the said checks in the bank and later uses these as evidence to file a case for BP 22. Isn’t that scary?
Thus, I am advocating that if the prosecution fails to present an authorized bank representative to testify on the dishonor of the check, the word ACQUITTAL should be spelled correctly.
What do you think?