In cases of infringement of B.P.B. 22, it is necessary for the Public Prosecutor`s Office to prove that the issuer has received a complaint of dishonour. Since service is a case, the person claiming that service has been served must justify service by reason of service. The doctrine that, in criminal matters, the necessary evidence is proof above a reasonable doubt is also fundamental. Therefore, for cases of P.O.B.B.B. 22, there should be clear evidence of notification.  Chanroble Virtual Legal Library Subsequently, in a decision of April 5, 2010, the MeTC dismissed B.P. 22 cases and thus decided: the Solicitor General replies in his comment that the petitioner`s arguments are unfounded and affirms that criminal laws are those which define crimes and provide for their punishment; The laws defining the jurisdiction of the courts are substantive in nature and not procedural in nature, since they do not concern the mode of action, but the power of the courts to rule and rule on certain cases in which they are vulnerable; R.A. No. 7691 is a substantive right and not a criminal law, since it nowhere in its provisions does it define a crime and does not provide for any penalty of any kind; The purpose of the implementation of R.A. No. 7691 is defined in the introductory sentence as “a law to extend the jurisdiction of the local courts, the communal district courts and the Metropolitan Trial Court”, the jurisdiction of these courts being reassigned to certain civil and criminal cases, which were previously tried exclusively by the regional courts; Therefore, section 22 OF THE CPR does not apply to the bar case; Jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at the time the complaint is lodged and, once acquired, jurisdiction is not affected by subsequent legislative regulations relating to the jurisdiction of another court; in this case, the RTC was responsible for deciding the petitioner`s cases when they were filed in October 1992; at that time, R.A. No.
7691 was not yet effective;  in so far as the retroactivity of the R.A. No. 7691 concerns the fact that this is limited only to pending civil cases which have not yet reached the preliminary stage, as provided for in Section 7 of the present case and as specified by the Court of Justice in people vs. Yolanda Velasco , where it was found: `[a] Access to Royal Law No. 7691 will show that its retroactive provisions apply only to civil cases, who have not yet reached the preliminary procedure. Neither by explicit nor tacit reservation, it cannot be interpreted as activating retroactively criminal cases pending before their effectiveness or decided by the BTI.  Although the facts in B.P. 22 below v Cu are not on all fours with those of Gidwani, the Court does not find why Gidwani cannot be made applicable to these cases. Indeed, the SEC`s order on the suspension of payments was preceded by the presentation to cash the checks it contained. It was here that the downstream cheques were deposited by SB Corp. in October 2008 and dishonored, for reasons of “account closure”, after the closure of G7 Bank and after the PDIC, through its deputy receiver, had taken over, on 1 August 2008, 07 Bank, its premises, assets and registrations, as well as a forbearance decree against the members of the board of directors and senior managers of 07 Bank and had closed all its deposit accounts with other banks, including its current account with LBP, against which the five disputed cheques were issued. .