You are on page 1of 1

Aimee N.

Calo
Criminal Law

Lozano v. Martinez
G.R. No. L-63419
December 18, 1986

Facts:
The constitutionality of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22), popularly known as the
Bouncing Check Law, is the sole issue presented by these petitions for decision. The
defendants moved seasonably to quash the information on the ground that the acts
charged did not constitute an offense, the statute being unconstitutional. The motions
were denied by the respondent trial courts. The parties adversely affected have come to
for relief.

Issues:
Is BP 22 a valid law?

Ruling:
Yes

Ratio:
The constitutionality of the law in question was upheld by the Court, it being within the
authority of the legislature to enact such a law in the exercise of the police power. It was
held that “one purposes of the law is to suppress possible abuses on the part of their
employers who hire laborers or employees without paying them the salaries agreed
upon for their services, thus causing them financial difficulties.” The law was viewed not
as a measure to coerce payment of an obligation, although obviously such could be its
effect, but to banish a practice considered harmful to public welfare.
In sum, BP 22 is a valid exercise of the police power and is not repugnant to the
constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for debt.