Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-!"#$ %ece&be' #() #$(
*LORENT+NA A. LO,ANO) petitione')
-s.
T.E .ONORABLE ANTON+O M. MART+NE,) in his
capacit/ as P'esi0in1 2u01e) Re1ional T'ial Cou't)
National Capital 2u0icial Re1ion) B'anch 33) Manila)
an0 the .ONORABLE 2OSE B. *LAM+N+ANO) in his
capacit/ as Cit/ *iscal of Manila) 'espon0ents.
G.R. No. L-(!$-"4 %ece&be' #() #$(
LU,5+M+N%A *. LOBATON petitione')
-s.
.ONORABLE GL+CER+O L. CRU,) in his capacit/ as
P'esi0in1 E6ecuti-e 2u01e) B'anch 5) Re1ion +5)
Re1ional T'ial Cou't) sittin1 at Le&e'/) Batan1as) T.E
PRO5+NC+AL *+SCAL O* BATANGAS) an0 MAR+A LU+SA
TOR%EC+LLA) 'espon0ents.
G.R No. 7#8" %ece&be' #() #$(
ANTON+O %ATU+N an0 SUSAN %ATU+N) petitione's)
-s.
.ONORABLE 2U%GE ERNAN+ C. PANO) Re1ional T'ial
Cou't) 9ue:on Cit/) B'anch L3335+++) .ONORABLE
ClT; *+SCAL O* 9UE,ON C+T;) 'espon0ents.
G.R. No. 7"84"-48 %ece&be' #() #$(
OSCAR 5+OLAGO) petitione')
-s.
.ONORABLE 2U%GE ERNAN+ C. PA<=O Re1ional T'ial
Cou't) 9ue:on Cit/) B'anch L3335+++) .ONORABLE
C+T; *+SCAL O* 9UE,ON C+T;) 'espon0ents.
G.R. No. 78#44-"$ %ece&be' #() #$(
EL+NOR ABA%) petitione')
-s.
T.E .ONORABLE N+COLAS A. GEROC.+) 2R.) in his
capacit/ as P'esi0in1 2u01e) Re1ional T'ial Cou't)
National Capital 2u0icial Re1ion) B'anch #!$) Ma>ati
an0 *E%ER+CO L. MELOCOTTON 2R.) in his capacit/ as
T'ial *iscal Re1ional T'ial Cou't) B'anch #!$)
Ma>ati) 'espon0ents.
G.R No. 78(#4-#! %ece&be' #() #$(
AMABLE R. AGU+LU, 5++ an0 S;L5+A 5. AGU+LU,)
spouses) petitione's)
-s.
.ONORABLE PRES+%+NG 2U%GE O* BRANC. #8") no?
-acant but te&po'a'il/ p'esi0e0 b/ .ONORABLE
ASAAL+ S. +SNAN+ B'anch #8!) Cou't of *i'st +nstance
of Pasi1) Met'o Manila) 'espon0ent.
G.R No. 7878-7 %ece&be' #() #$(
LU+S M. .O2AS) petitione')
-s.
.ON. 2U%GE SENEN PENARAN%A) P'esi0in1 2u01e)
Re1ional T'ial Cou't of Ca1a/an 0e O'o Cit/) B'anch
33) .ONORABLE 2U%GE AL*RE%O LAGAMON)
P'esi0in1 2u01e) Re1ional T'ial Cou't of Ca1a/an 0e
O'o Cit/) B'anch 33++) .ONORABLE C+T; *+SCAL NOL+
T. CAT.+) Cit/ *iscal of Ca1a/an 0e O'o
Cit/)'espon0ents.
G.R. No. 787($ %ece&be' #() #$(
T.E PEOPLE O* T.E P.+L+PP+NES) petitione')
-s.
.ON. %A5+% G. N+TA*AN) P'esi0in1 2u01e) Re1ional
T'ial Cou't) National Capital 2u0icial Re1ion) B'anch
84) Manila an0 T.ELMA SARM+ENTO) 'espon0ents.
R.R. Nogales Law Ofce for petitioner in G.R. No. 63419,
G.R. Nos. 7452425, G.R. Nos. 75!1213, G.R. Nos. 75765
67 an" co#nsel for respon"ent in G.R. No. 757!9.
$io %. &anta for petitioner in G.R. Nos. 66!3942.
'er(ogenes )at#in, *r. for petitioner in G.R. No. 71654.
+,ino-a, .a,alingcos, /illalon 0 +ssociates for petitioner in
G.R. Nos. 7512249.
.1e %olicitor General for respon"ent in G.R. No. 63419, G.R.
Nos. 66!3942, G.R. No. 71654, G.R. Nos. 7452425, G.R.
Nos. 7512249, G.R. Nos. 75!1213, G.R. Nos. 7576567 an"
co#nsel for petitioner in G.R. No. 757!9.
;AP) J.:
The constitutionality of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22 for
short), popularly known as the Bouncing Check Law, which
was approve on !pril ", #$%$, is the sole issue presente
by these petitions for ecision& The 'uestion is e(nitely one
of (rst impression in our )urisiction&
These petitions arose from cases involving prosecution of
o*enses uner the statute& The efenants in those cases
move seasonably to 'uash the informations on the groun
that the acts charge i not constitute an o*ense, the
statute being unconstitutional& The motions were enie by
the responent trial courts, e+cept in one case, which is the
sub)ect of ,& -& .o& %/%0$, wherein the trial court eclare
the law unconstitutional an ismisse the case& The parties
aversely a*ecte have come to us for relief&
!s a threshol issue the former 1olicitor ,eneral in his
comment on the petitions, maintaine the posture that it
was premature for the accuse to elevate to this Court the
orers enying their motions to 'uash, these orers being
interlocutory& 2hile this is correct as a general rule, we have
in )usti(able cases intervene to review the lower court3s
enial of a motion to 'uash&
#
4n view of the importance of
the issue involve here, there is no oubt in our min that
the instant petitions shoul be entertaine an the
constitutional challenge to BP 22 resolve promptly, one
way or the other, in orer to put to rest the oubts an
uncertainty that e+ist in legal an )uicial circles an the
general public which have unnecessarily cause a elay in
the isposition of cases involving the enforcement of the
statute&
5or the purpose of resolving the constitutional issue
presente here, we o not (n it necessary to elve into the
speci(cs of the informations involve in the cases which are
the sub)ect of the petitions before us&
4
The language of BP
22 is broa enough to cover all kins of checks, whether
present ate or postate, or whether issue in payment
of pre6e+isting obligations or given in mutual or
simultaneous e+change for something of value&
2
BP 22 punishes a person 7who makes or raws an issues
any check on account or for value, knowing at the time of
issue that he oes not have su8cient funs in or creit with
the rawee bank for the payment of sai check in full upon
presentment, which check is subse'uently ishonore by
the rawee bank for insu8ciency of funs or creit or woul
have been ishonore for the same reason ha not the
rawer, without any vali reason, orere the bank to stop
payment&7 The penalty prescribe for the o*ense is
imprisonment of not less than "9 ays nor more than one
year or a (ne or not less than the amount of the check nor
more than ouble sai amount, but in no case to e+cee
P299,999&99, or both such (ne an imprisonment at the
iscretion of the court&
!
The statute likewise imposes the same penalty on 7any
person who, having su8cient funs in or creit with the
rawee bank when he makes or raws an issues a check,
shall fail to keep su8cient funs or to maintain a creit to
cover the full amount of the check if presente within a
perio of ninety ($9) ays from the ate appearing thereon,
for which reason it is ishonore by the rawee bank&
"
!n essential element of the o*ense is 7knowlege7 on the
part of the maker or rawer of the check of the insu8ciency
of his funs in or creit with the bank to cover the check
upon its presentment& 1ince this involves a state of min
i8cult to establish, the statute itself creates a pri(a
facie presumption of such knowlege where payment of the
check 7is refuse by the rawee because of insu8cient
funs in or creit with such bank when presente within
ninety ($9) ays from the ate of the check&
8
To mitigate
the harshness of the law in its application, the statute
provies that such presumption shall not arise if within (ve
(/) banking ays from receipt of the notice of ishonor, the
maker or rawer makes arrangements for payment of the
check by the bank or pays the holer the amount of the
check&
!nother provision of the statute, also in the nature of a rule
of evience, provies that the introuction in evience of
the unpai an ishonore check with the rawee bank3s
refusal to pay 7stampe or written thereon or attache
thereto, giving the reason therefor, 7shall constitute pri(a
facie proof of 7the making or issuance of sai check, an the
ue presentment to the rawee for payment an the
ishonor thereof &&& for the reason written, stampe or
attache by the rawee on such ishonore check&7