LEGAL RESEARCH AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

SALISI CASE

On Dec. 22, 2015, Salisi and Magdusa entered into a contract of sale of
the latter's Nissan Camry 2013 Model, under the following terms: 100,000
cash downpayment, the balance of 700,000 payable in 14 monthly
installments of 50,000, the 1st installment becoming due on Jan 22, 2016 and
the others every 22nd of the following months thereafter. The former issued
fourteen postdated checks of 50,000 each.

On Jan 23 2016, Magdusa went to the bank to encash the 1st check but
the same was dishonored. The bank stamped NSF on it. Magdusa called Salisi
to make good of the check by depositing the amount of 50,000. Salisi replied
that he would do exactly as told but later on asked Magdusa to collect both
1st and 2nd installments on the 22nd of February. Because of their long
standing friendship, Magdusa agreed. After Feb 22, Magdusa attempted to
encash the 2 checks but the same were dishonored. The bank told Magdusa
the account of Salisi was closed. Magdusa wrote Salisi that he would be
forced to sue him if the latter would not deliver the entire 700,000 by March
1, 2015. He contempated of filing a case for violations of BP22.

Salisi retorted that he had no intention of defrauding Magdusa as the debt

remains; that no damage was inflicted as he could return the car as long as
the downpayment is likewise returned; that Magdusa should send first
collection notice or letter so he and Magdusa could talk the matter over cups
of imported coffee; and that in the Lim and Vaca cases, filing criminal cases
would be expensive and futile as he would be required to pay his debts in the
end. Comment on Salisi's wild asseverations.

1. On Salisi retorting that he had no intention of defrauding

Magdusa as the debt remain:

(Lim Case) It is not necessary that the appellant should have acted
with criminal intent. In many crimes, made such by statutory
enactment, the intention of the person who commits the crime is
entirely immaterial. This is necessarily so. If it were not, the statute as a
deterrent influence would be substantially worthless. It would be
impossible of execution. In many cases, the act complained of is itself that
which produces the pernicious effect the statute seeks to avoid. In those
cases the pernicious effect is produced with precisely the same force and
result whether the intention of the person performing the act is good or
bad.
2. That no damage was inflicted as he could return the car as long
as the downpayment is likewise returned:

(Lim Case) Even if the payee suffered no damage as a result of the

issuance of the bouncing check, the damage to the integrity of the
banking system cannot be denied. Damage to the payee is not an
element of the crime punished in B.P. Blg. 22.

3. That Magdusa should send first collection notice or letter so he

and Magdusa could talk the matter over cups of imported coffee:

(Vaca Case) Section2 of B.P. Blg. 22 expressly provides:

Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. - The making, drawing

and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee
because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when presented
within ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima facie
evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit
unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount
due thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by the
drawee of such check within five (5) banking days after receiving
notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.

The stamped check is a notice of dishonor to which Magdusa personally

and immediately informed Salisi. Salisi failed to rebut the presumption
that she knew her funds were insufficient at the time of issue of the
checks. He failed to pay the amount of the checks or make
arrangement for its payment within five (5) banking days from
receipt of notice of dishonor. B.P. No. 22 was clearly violated.

4. On the filing criminal cases that would be expensive and futile as

Salisi would be required to pay his debts in the end:

(Lim and Vaca)Laws are created to achieve a goal intended and to guide
and prevent against an evil or mischief. An affidavit of desistance
deserves no more than passing mention. It is for reasons such as this that
affidavits of desistance, like retractions, are generally disfavored.

Salisi can be prosecuted by the State notwithstanding a possible

desistance by Magdusa. It is in the interest of the State to
prosecute criminal offenses.

Sources:
ROSA LIM vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. No. 130038

EDUARDO R. VACA and FERNANDO NIETO vs. COURT OF APPEALS and the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. No. 131714