ELVIRA YU OH
. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs
G.R. No. 125297, Jun !, 2""#
Fa$%&'
Elvira Yu Oh purchased pieces of jewelry from Solid Gold International Traders, Inc. Due to her failure to pay the purchase price, Solid Gold led civil cases a!ainst her for specic performance. On Septem"er #$, #%%&, Yu Oh and Solid Gold, throu!h its !eneral mana!er 'oa(uin )ovales III, entered into a compromise a!reement a!reement to settle said civil cases. The compromise a!reement, as approved "y the trial court, provided that Yu Oh shall issue a total of ninety*nine post*dated chec+s in the amount of -&,&&&.&& each, dated every #- th and &th of the month startin! Octo"er #, #%%& and the "alance of over # million to "e paid in lump sum on )ovem"er #/, #%%0 which is also the due date of the %% th and last postdated chec+. chec+. Yu Oh issue issued d ten chec+s chec+s at -&,&& -&,&&&.& &.&& & each, each, for a total total of -&&,& -&&,&&&. &&.&&, &&, drawn drawn a!ainst her account at the E(uita"le 1an+in! 2orporation 3E124, Grace ar+, 2aloocan 2ity 1ranch. )ovales then deposited each of the ten chec+s on their respective due dates with the 5ar East 1an+ and Trust 2ompany 35E1T24. 6owever, said chec+s were dishonored "y E12 for the reason 78ccount 2losed.7 Dishonor slips were issued for each chec+ that was returned to )ovales.
I&&u'
9hether or not notice of dishonor is dispensa"le in the case at "ar.
H(d'
It is essential for the ma+er or drawer to "e notied of the dishonor of her chec+, so she could could pay pay the value value there thereof of or ma+e ma+e arran arran!em !ement ents s for its payme payment nt within within the period period prescri"ed "y law and omission or ne!lect on the part of the prosecution to prove that the accused received such notice of dishonor is fatal to its cause. Thus, a"sent a clear showin! that petitioner actually +new of the dishonor of her chec+s and was !iven the opportunity to ma+e ma+e arran!e arran!ements ments for payment payment as provided provided for under under the law, we cannot cannot with moral certainty convict her of violation of 1.. 1l!. ::. The failure of the prosecution to prove that petitioner was !iven the re(uisite notice of dishonor is a clear !round for her ac(uittal.
