This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-09-05 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check; that is, a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment.[17] In Lozano v. Martinez,[18] we have declared that it is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making and circulation of worthless checks. Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by the law. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an offense against public order.[19] In People v. Nitafan,[20] we said that a check issued as an evidence of debt though not intended to be presented for payment has the same effect as an ordinary check and would fall within the ambit of B.P. Blg. 22. | |||||
|
2005-08-12 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Then too, the gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check, that is, a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum. So also, it is not the nonpayment of the obligation that is being punished, but the making of worthless checks.[40] What the law punishes is such issuance of a bum check and not the purpose for which the check was issued nor the terms or conditions relating to its issuance.[41] Thus, even if there had been payment through compensation or some other means, there could still be prosecution for violation of B.P. 22.[42] | |||||
|
2004-12-09 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Under this provision, there are two ways of violating B.P. 22: 1) by making or drawing and issuing a check to apply "on account or for value," knowing at the time of issue that the check was not sufficiently funded; and 2) by having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank at the time of issue, but failing to keep sufficient funds or credit with the said bank to cover the full amount of the check when presented to the drawee bank within a period of ninety (90) days.[21] The elements of the offense under the first situation are the following: (1) the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply on account or for value; (2) 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 (3) the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or that the check would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.[22] | |||||