Mr. Henry Chao is charged before the Metropolitan
Trial Court (MeTC) Manila with five (5) counts of
Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22). Consider
the factual scenario from the testimonies of
complainant Mr. Ben Que and accused Mr. Henry Chao.
Assume to be the Defense Counsel and prepare a
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ACCUSED for your client, Mr.
Henry Chao.
Testimony of Mr. Ben Que
(After the cases were called for joint trial)
P. Prosecutor: Good Morning, Your Honor.
Appearing for the prosecution.
Ready.
D. Counsel: Good Morning, Your Honor.
Appearing as counsel for the
accused. Ready.
P. Prosecutor: We are calling to the witness stand,
the complainant, Mr. Ben Que, who
will prove the commission of the
offense.
Court Staff: Mr. Ben Que, do you swear to tell
the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth in this
proceeding?
Witness: Yes, sir.
Court Staff: State your name, age, status and
other personal circumstances.
Witness: I am Ben Que, 60 years old, married,
and a resident of 123 Tridalo Street,
Mandaluyong City
P. Prosecutor: Mr. Que, do you know Mr. Henry
Chao who is the accused in this case
and, if so, under what circumstances?
Witness: Yes, sir. He is the Manager of Atlas
Parts. Last June 01, 2011, accused
borrowed from me the amount
of P 50,000.00, with 5% monthly
interest, payable in five (5) equal
monthly installments of P12,500.00.
He said that the money will be used
to pay for their stocks.
P. Prosecutor: Did you execute a document to
evidence your transaction?
Witness: As per our agreement, he issued and
delivered to me five ( 5) checks.
D. Counsel: Your Honor, please. For the record, I
take exception to the statement of
the witness that he received checks
from the accused. If we closely
examine these instruments, it will
show that they are NOW slips, that
is, Negotiable Order of Withdrawal
slips. These are not bills of exchange
within the meaning of the
Negotiable Instruments Law, and
therefore, cannot be considered as
checks.
P. Prosecutor: Your Honor, they are still bank
instruments. Complainant Mr. Que
specifically required the issuance of
checks to facilitate and ensure the
payment of the obligation, and the
accused issued and delivered them
for that purpose. Violation of the
Bouncing Checks Law is malum
prohibitum. The law was enacted to
maintain faith in bank instruments
for utilization in commercial
transactions. We have to apply the
spirit of the law.
COURT: Observation noted.
P. Prosecutor: When and where did the accused
execute and hand over to you these
five (5) instruments?
Witness: On June 01, 2011, at my house in
Mandaluyong City, after I gave him
in cash the P 50,000.00 that he
loaned.
P. Prosecutor: And where are these instruments
now?
Witness: Here sir. (Witness handling them to
the prosecutor.)
P. Prosecutor: May I manifest for the record the
observation that the instruments are
of the same size and material as the
normal checks and have these
check-like features:
NOW Account No. 123456 No. 0001
Atlas Parts Date: July 1, 2011
PAY TO: Mr. Ben Que P 12,500.00
PESOS: Twelve Thousand Five Hundred
Pesos
Sgd. Henry Chao
Alloy Bank
Pasong Tamo Branch
Makati
P. Prosecutor: Do you know whose signature is
that appearing on the lower right
side of this instrument and all the
four (4) others, as well?
Witness: Those are the signatures of the
accused Henry Chao. I personally
saw him sign them and thereafter,
handed the five (5) instruments to
me.
P. Prosecutor: May I request that No. 0001 dated
July 1, 2011 in the amount
of P 12,500.00 be marked as Exhibit
A for the prosecution; No. 0002
dated August 1, 2011 also in the
same amount as Exhibit B; No. 0003
dated September 2, 2011 as Exhibit
C; No. 0004 dated October 1, 2011
as Exhibit D; and No. 0005 dated
November 1, 2011 as Exhibit E.
COURT: Mark them as requested.
P. Prosecutor: What did you do with these
instruments which represented the
installment payments of accused for
his loan obligation?
Witness: On their respective due dates, I
deposited each of them to my
Savings Account at BOD Bank,
Manila City Hall Branch in Manila,
but all of them were dishonored by
the drawee, Alloy Bank, for the
reason “Account Closed."
P. Prosecutor: What proof do you have that these
instruments were dishonored?
Witness: I received several debit advices from
BOD Bank together with the
returned slips with a stamp at the
back stating as follows:
DISHONORED/RETURNED
Reason: Account Closed
Officer: Mr. M
P. Prosecutor: May I request that the stamps of
dishonor and the reason “Account
134 BAR Q 8. A
C|osed" appearing at the back of
each instrument be correspondingly
marked as Exhibits A-1 to E-1,
respectively.
COURT: Mark them accordingly.
D. Counsel: I move to strike out this particular
testimony for being hearsay. This
witness is not competent to testify
on these matters pertaining to bank
records.
COURT: Does the defense deny that all five
(5) instruments were dishonored
and returned to the witness?
D. Counsel: No, Your Honor. But these matters
should be testified on by the bank
personnel.
COURT: Motion to strike is denied.
P. Prosecutor: What action did you take?
Witness: After each dishonor, I personally
went to Mr. Chao and demanded
that he make good his commitment,
but he merely ignored my demands.
P. Prosecutor: What did you do then after all the
five (5) instruments were
dishonored and your demands
ignored?
Witness: I consulted a lawyer and he advised
me to send a formal demand letter
to the accused, which I did. On
January 2, 2012, I sent the letter by
registered mail to Mr. Henry Chao to
his office address at 007 Malugay
Street, Malabon City giving him five
(5) days to make good his promise.
Here is the registry receipt.
P. Prosecutor: I request that the demand letter be
marked as Exhibit F and that the
Registry Receipt No. 321 dated
January 2, 2012 posted at
Mandaluyong City Post Office be
marked as Exhibit G for the
prosecution.
COURT: Mark it then.
P. Prosecutor: Do you know if accused actually
received your letter sent by
registered mail?
Witness: I assumed that he had received it
because the registered letter was
not returned to me.
D. Counsel: I take exception to that statement.
Your Honor, because jurisprudence
require actual receipt by the drawer
of the demand before any criminal
liability can attach.
P. Prosecutor: May I clarify, Your Honor, that the
five (5) days from notice of dishonor
given to the drawer of a check to
make arrangement for payment by
the drawee of the amount of the
dishonored checks is to forestall the
existence of a prima facie evidence
of knowledge of the insufficiency of
funds. But here, the reason of the
dishonor is “Account Closed," and
not just insufficiency of funds. In
short, there is actual proof of lack of
credit with drawee bank. The
account is already closed and
accused cannot even make a deposit
anymore.
COURT: The manifestation is noted.
P. Prosecutor: Has the accused paid the amounts
covered by the dishonored
instruments?
Witness: No, sir. He has arrogantly refused to
make any payment.
P. Prosecutor: No further questions.
COURT: Cross.
D. Counsel: With the Court's permission. You
earlier stated that accused Henry
Chao is the Manager of Atlas Parts
and that the money borrowed was
used to pay for their stocks, is that
correct?
Witness: Yes, sir. That is what he told me.
D. Counsel: So, it is clear that the money loaned
from you was not used by the
accused for his benefit?
Witness: I do not know how he used it. The
fact is that I lent the money to him.
D. Counsel: Regarding the demand letter that
you allegedly sent to accused, do
you have the registry return card
showing that accused received the
letter?
Witness: No, sir. But I have the registry
receipt. Since the letter was not
returned to sender, it is presumed
that it was received by the
addressee.
D. Counsel: Is it not a fact that you have filed
another collection suit against Atlas
Parts seeking to recover the
same P 50,000.00 covered by the
dishonored slips?
Witness: Yes, sir. That is true because I want
to recover my money from either of
them.
D. Counsel: No further questions, Your Honor.
Testimony of Mr. Henry Chao
(After oath and formal of fer of testimony.)
D. Counsel: Do you own NOW Account No.
123456 maintained at Alloy Bank,
Pasong Tamo Branch?
Witness: No, sir. That is owned by my
employer Atlas Parts and, as the
Manager, I am the signatory.
D. Counsel: Mr. Chao, in June 2011 when you
issued the dishonored NOW slips,
did you derive any personal benefit
from the amount loaned?
Witness: No, sir. The money was used to pay
an account payable.
D. Counsel: During the due dates of the NOW
slips that you issued to Mr. Que,
were you still the Manager of Atlas
138 BAR Q &A -
Parts?
Witness: Not anymore, sir, because in the
middle of June 2011, I resigned as
Manager, and I was not aware of the
dishonor.
D. Counsel: Did you receive the demand letter
sent to you by Mr. Que after the
dishonor?
Witness: No, sir.
COURT: Cross?
P. Prosecutor: With the kind permission of the
Court. Mr. Chao, is it not a fact that
Mr. Que specifically required you to
issue checks to pay the monthly
installment of the loan?
Witness: Yes, sir.
P. Prosecutor: You will agree with me that without
those five (5) checks, or NOW slips
as you call them, Mr. Que will not
lend money to you?
Witness: Yes, sir.
P. Prosecutor: You will also agree that the demand
letter of Mr. Que was delivered to
your office address because that is
the address that you gave to Mr.
Que in connection with your
transaction?
Witness: Yes, sir. That is possible, but I was
not able to receive it because I had
already resigned and I could not do
anything anymore.
P. Prosecutor: That is all, Your Honor.