This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-04-16 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| B.P. Blg. 22 was enacted to address the rampant issuance of bouncing checks as payment for pre-existing obligations. The circulation of bouncing checks adversely affected confidence in trade and commerce. The State criminalized such practice because it was deemed injurious to public interests[12] and was found to be pernicious and inimical to public welfare.[13] B.P. Blg. 22 punishes the act of making and issuing bouncing checks. It is the act itself of issuing the checks which is considered malum prohibitum. The law is an offense against public order and not an offense against property.[14] It penalizes the issuance of a check without regard to its purpose. It covers all types of checks.[15] Even checks that were issued as a form of deposit or guarantee were held to be within the ambit of B.P. Blg. 22.[16] | |||||
|
2006-12-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is well to note that the gravamen of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is the issuance of a check, not the nonpayment of an obligation.[18] The law has made the act of issuing a bum check a malum prohibitum.[19] Consequently, the lack of criminal intent on the part of the accused is irrelevant,[20] and the accused will be convicted for violation thereof as long as the following elements are proven: The accused makes, draws or issues any check to apply to account or for value; The accused knows at the time of the issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and The check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or it would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.[21] All these elements have been conclusively proven in Court, the second element by the prima facie evidence established by Section 2 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, which provides: | |||||
|
2005-11-18 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner categorically admits the fact of issuance of the checks and their dishonor,[10] the first and third elements. He has likewise failed to rebut the statutory presumption[11] of knowledge of insufficient funds, the second element, which attaches if the check is presented and dishonored within 90 days from its issuance.[12] While petitioner alleges to have paid private respondent the amount of the checks, he failed to specify if he had done so within five banking days from receiving notice of the checks' dishonor and to present any evidence of such payment. In addition, his unsubstantiated claim of cash payment contradicts his earlier defense that he had replaced the checks. | |||||
|
2001-07-06 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The elements of the offense under BP 22 are (a) the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply to account or for value; (b) the maker, drawer or issuer knows at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment; and, (c) the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.[20] | |||||