This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-11-11 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The Court shall not be belabored with the issue of whether or not Purificacion was an accommodation party because she was not. Granting that she was, it is with more reason that she cannot escape any civil liability because Section 29[24] of the Negotiable Instruments Law specifically bounds her to the instrument. The crux of the controversy pertains to the civil liability of an accused despite acquittal of a criminal charge. Such issue is no longer novel. In cases like violation of BP 22, a special law, the intent in issuing a check is immaterial. The law has made the mere act of issuing a bad check malum prohibitum, an act proscribed by the legislature for being deemed pernicious and inimical to public welfare. Considering the rule in mala prohibita cases, the only inquiry is whether the law has been breached.[25] The lower courts were unanimous in finding that, indeed, Purificacion issued the bouncing check. Thus, regardless of her intent, she remains civilly liable because the act or omission, the making and issuing of the subject check, from which her civil liability arises, evidently exists. | |||||
|
2011-10-05 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| We have held that upon issuance of a check, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the same was issued for valuable consideration which may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the party who makes the contract, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or some responsibility, to act, or labor, or service given, suffered or undertaken by the other side.[14] Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, it is presumed that every party to an instrument acquires the same for a consideration or for value.[15] As petitioner alleged that there was no consideration for the issuance of the subject checks, it devolved upon him to present convincing evidence to overthrow the presumption and prove that the checks were in fact issued without valuable consideration.[16] Sadly, however, petitioner has not presented any credible evidence to rebut the presumption, as well as North Star's assertion, that the checks were issued as payment for the US$85,000 petitioner owed. | |||||
|
2009-09-29 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| The penalty for the crime charged in this case is arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, which has a duration of 1 month and 1 day to 4 months, and a fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and not more than three times such value. Here, as alleged in the information, the value of the damage caused, or the imposable fine, is P12,895.00. Clearly, from a reading of the information, the jurisdiction over the criminal case was with the RTC and not the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). The MeTC could not have acquired jurisdiction over the criminal action because at the time of the filing of the information, its jurisdiction was limited to offenses punishable with a fine of not more than P4,000.00.[17] | |||||