Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

THERESA MACALALAG v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 160127 2008-11-11	RAFAEL P. LUNARIA v. PEOPLE PUNO, C.J.
It bears repeating that the lack of criminal intent on the part of the accused is irrelevant.[18] The law has made the mere act of issuing a worthless check a malum prohibitum, an act proscribed by legislature for being deemed pernicious and inimical to public welfare.[19] In fact, even in cases where there had been payment, through compensation or some other means, there could still be prosecution for violation of B.P. 22. The gravamen of the offense under this law is the act of issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentment for payment, not the nonpayment of the obligation.[20]
	GR No. 160127 2008-11-11	RAFAEL P. LUNARIA v. PEOPLE PUNO, C.J.
It bears repeating that the lack of criminal intent on the part of the accused is irrelevant.[18] The law has made the mere act of issuing a worthless check a malum prohibitum, an act proscribed by legislature for being deemed pernicious and inimical to public welfare.[19] In fact, even in cases where there had been payment, through compensation or some other means, there could still be prosecution for violation of B.P. 22. The gravamen of the offense under this law is the act of issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentment for payment, not the nonpayment of the obligation.[20]
	GR No. 175381 2008-02-26	JAMES SVENDSEN v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
The interest rate of 10% per month agreed upon by the parties in this case being clearly excessive, iniquitous and unconscionable cannot thus be sustained. In Macalalag v. People,[23] Diño v. Jardines,[24] and in Cuaton v. Salud,[25] this Court, finding the 10% per month interest rate to be unconscionable, reduced it to 12% per annum. And in other cases[26] where the interest rates stipulated were even less than that involved herein, the Court equitably reduced them.