Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALBERTO LIM v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 149275 2004-09-27	VICKY C. TY v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
As to the issue of consideration, it is presumed, upon issuance of the checks, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the same was issued for valuable consideration.[36] Section 24[37] of the Negotiable Instruments Law creates a presumption that every party to an instrument acquired the same for a consideration[38] or for value.[39] In alleging otherwise, Ty has the onus to prove that the checks were issued without consideration. She must present convincing evidence to overthrow the presumption.
	GR No. 149275 2004-09-27	VICKY C. TY v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
At any rate, the law punishes the mere act of issuing a bouncing check, not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance.[42] B.P. 22 does not make any distinction as to whether the checks within its contemplation are issued in payment of an obligation or to merely guarantee the obligation.[43] The thrust of the law is to prohibit the making of worthless checks and putting them into circulation.[44] As this Court held in Lim v. People of the Philippines,[45] "what is primordial is that such issued checks were worthless and the fact of its worthlessness is known to the appellant at the time of their issuance, a required element under B.P. Blg. 22."
	GR No. 146211 2002-08-06	MANUEL NAGRAMPA v. PEOPLE DAVIDE, JR., C.J.
(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.[26]
	GR No. 138669 2002-06-06	STEVE TAN v. FABIAN MENDEZ QUISUMBING, J.
Whether or not payment through compensation or offset can preclude prosecution for violation of B.P. 22. The law enumerates the elements of B.P. Blg. 22 to be (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for 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.[16]
	GR No. 138669 2002-06-06	STEVE TAN v. FABIAN MENDEZ QUISUMBING, J.
It bears stressing that the issue of whether or not the obligations covered by the subject check had been paid by compensation or offset is a factual issue that requires evaluation and assessment of certain facts. This is not proper in a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court. We have repeatedly held that this Court is not a trier of facts.[20] The jurisdiction of this Court over cases elevated from the Court of Appeals is confined to the review of errors of law ascribed to the Court of Appeals, whose findings of fact are conclusive absent any showing that such findings are entirely devoid of any substantiation on record.[21]
	GR No. 138669 2002-06-06	STEVE TAN v. FABIAN MENDEZ QUISUMBING, J.
Interestingly, petitioners never alleged compensation when they received the demand letter, during the preliminary investigation, or before trial by filing a motion to dismiss. Moreover, if indeed there was payment by compensation, petitioners should have redeemed or taken the checks back in the ordinary course of business.[29] There is no evidence on record that they did so.