This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2005-03-10 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Considering the absence of proof or allegation by the prosecution to show that petitioner is not a first-time offender,[43] we find that the interests of justice would be best served if petitioner would simply be fined, double the amount of the subject check, instead of imprisoned, to enable him to find ways to settle his civil obligations to private complainant, not to mention the fine imposed on him. | |||||
|
2004-07-14 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| We agree with the submission of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) that petitioner's argument is immaterial and irrelevant.[21] This Court has consistently declared that the cause or reason for the issuance of a check is inconsequential in determining criminal culpability under BP 22.[22] We explained the reason in Llamado v. Court of Appeals as follows:[23] "[T]o determine the reason[s] for which checks are issued, or the terms and conditions for their issuance, will greatly erode the faith the public reposes in the stability and commercial value of checks as currency substitutes, and bring about havoc in trade and in banking communities."[24] The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check; that is, a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment.[25] The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum.[26] Lozano v. Martinez,[27] has declared that it is not the nonpayment of the obligation that is being punished, but the making of worthless checks. In People v. Nitafan,[28] this Court has ruled 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 BP 22. Que v. People[29] has affirmed the application of BP 22 to cases in which dishonored checks have been issued in the form of deposit or guarantee. Indeed, the law does not make any distinction between checks issued in payment of an obligation and those made merely to guarantee that obligation.[30] | |||||
|
2003-06-06 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| . . . B.P. Blg. 22 was purposely enacted to prevent the proliferation of worthless checks in the mainstream of daily business and to avert not only the undermining of the banking system of the country but also the infliction of damage and injury upon trade and commerce occasioned by the indiscriminate issuances of such checks. By its very nature, the offenses defined under B.P. Blg. 22 are against public interest.[34] In Recuerdo vs. People, this Court also held that the terms and conditions surrounding the issuance of the checks are irrelevant since its primordial intention is to ensure the stability and commercial value of checks as being virtual substitutes for currency.[35] | |||||