This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-01-24 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It is a basic legal precept that courts do not look into the wisdom of the laws passed. The principle of separation of powers demands this hands-off attitude from the judiciary. Saguiguit v. People[167] teaches why: ... [W]hat the petitioner asks is for the Court to delve into the policy behind or wisdom of a statute, ... which, under the doctrine of separation of powers, it cannot do,.... Even with the best of motives, the Court can only interpret and apply the law and cannot, despite doubts about its wisdom, amend or repeal it. Courts of justice have no right to encroach on the prerogatives of lawmakers, as long as it has not been shown that they have acted with grave abuse of discretion. And while the judiciary may interpret laws and evaluate them for constitutional soundness and to strike them down if they are proven to be infirm, this solemn power and duty do not include the discretion to correct by reading into the law what is not written therein. | |||||
|
2010-08-03 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Moreover, it is well settled that the mere act of issuing a worthless check, even if merely as an accommodation, is covered by B.P. 22.[25] Thus, this Court has held that the agreement surrounding the issuance of dishonored checks is irrelevant to the prosecution for violation of B.P. 22.[26] The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentment for payment.[27] Section 1 of B.P. 22 enumerates the following elements: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply on account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment. Thus, even if it be subsequently declared that novation took place between the FWCC and petitioner, respondent is not exempt from prosecution for violation of B.P. 22 for the dishonored checks. | |||||