POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
KA-POLI NOTES In the case of Serafin vs. Lindayag, why did the trial court issue
This reviewer is made out of love and fear for the law. Please
do not hesitate to share this material because sharing is caring
and karma always has its ways. #NoToCrabs
BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-
payment of a poll tax.
NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT
What is the coverage of this Constitutionally mandated right?
(1.) Debt – It is any civil obligation arising from a contract. It
includes even debts contained through fraud since no
distinction is made in the Constitution. While a debtor
cannot be imprisoned for failure to pay his debt, he can
be validly punished in a criminal action if he contracted
his debt through fraud.
(2.) Poll tax – It is the specific sum levied upon any person
belonging to a certain class without regard to property
or occupation. A tax is not a debt to the State, but an
obligation that arises from law. Failure to pay the same
can be validly punished with imprisonment. The only
exception is the payment of a poll tax.
What are the two rights under Section 20?
(1.) Non-imprisonment for debt; and
(2.) Non-imprisonment for non-payment of poll tax.
Does this provision apply to all obligations?
No. It only applies to obligation that arise from contracts, and
not any other sources.
POLI RECIT Qs / ARTICLE III, SECTION 20
KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
the warrant of arrest?
Because Judge Lindayag was able to “find probable cause” to
arrest Serafin on the ground of Estafa despite the simple
indebtedness that has taken place.
In Lozano vs. Martinez, was the obligation to pay the face
value of a check a contractual obligation? What will happen if
the drawer fails to pay within 5 days after it is dishonored?
Will he be criminally liable?
No. The issuance will not be punished. It is the failure to pay
within five days after notice of dishonor which is punished. So,
it is not accurate to say that the punishable act is the drawing
of the check from a closed account, but the period to pay the
obligation mandated by law.
Will common law remedy be allowed so that the creditor can
have the body of the debtor and be released until he pays?
Capias as satisfaciendum. At common law, money judgments
arising from actions for the recovery of a debt or for damages
from breach of a contract could be enforced against the
person or body of the debtor by writ of capias ad
satisfaciendum. By means of this writ, a debtor could be seized
and imprisoned at the instance of the creditor until he makes
the satisfaction awarded. As a consequence of the popular
ground swell against such a barbarous practice, provisions
forbidding imprisonment for debt came to be generally
enshrined in the constitutions of various states of the Union.
Does tax on membership on the community without regard
to income, is that the accurate definition of poll tax?
No. It is the specific sum levied upon any person belonging to
a certain class without regard to property or occupation. A tax
is not a debt to the State, but an obligation that arises from
law. Failure to pay the same can be validly punished with
imprisonment.
Serafin vs. Lindayag
A.M. No. 297-MJ. September 30, 1975
Facts:
➔ Avelina Serafin was not able to pay the P1,500 she
borrowed from Mrs. Corazon Mendoza.
➔ With this, a criminal complaint for Estafa was filed
against Serafin.
➔ The respondent, Judge Lindayag, admitted the criminal
complaint and issued the corresponding warrant of
arrest. With this, Serafin filed an administrative case
against Judge Lindayag on the ground of gross
ignorance of law, which was endorsed by the Executive
Judge to the Department of Justice.
Issue: W/N there was a violation of the Constitutional
mandate against non-imprisonment of debt when the judge
ordered the imprisonment of Serafin.
Held: Yes. In admitting such a "criminal complaint" Judge
Lindayag grossly failed to perform his duties properly, which
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
in this instance was to dismiss the complaint outright since it
is elementary that non-payment of an indebtedness is not a
criminal act, much less Estafa; and that no one may be
criminally charged and punished for non-payment of a loan
of a sum of money.
In recklessly issuing the warrant of arrest, Judge Lindayag
further enabled the police to produce such injustice by
trampling upon of the complainant's basic rights.
Here, Serafin did not commit any offense since the debt is
considered a simple loan granted by her friends to her. There
is no collateral or security because complainant was an old
friend of the spouses who lent the money and that when they
wrote her a letter of demands he promised to pay them and
said that if she failed to keep her promise, they could get her
valuable things at her home.
Even prescinding from the aggravation of the cover-up, the
Court finds that the penalty of dismissal is called for, in line
with the precedents and standards set by it. A judge who
disregards deliberately or is ignorant of the basic
fundamentals of law and justice is unfit to continue in office.
Doctrine: A warrant of arrest issued based on a criminal
complaint where on its face no criminal offense has been
committed save the failure to settle an obligation despite
demand is violative of the prohibition against imprisonment
for non-payment of debt.
Lozano vs. Martinez
G.R. No. L-63419. December 18, 1986
Facts:
➔ The constitutionality of BP 22, popularly known as the
Bouncing Check Law, is the sole issue presented by these
petitions for decision.
➔ These petitions arose from cases involving prosecution
of offenses under the statute. The defendants in those
cases moved seasonably to quash the pieces of
information on the ground that the acts charged did not
constitute an offense, the statute being unconstitutional.
➔ BP 22 punishes a person "who makes or draws and issues
any check on account or for value, knowing at the time
of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank for the payment of said check in
full upon presentment, which check is subsequently
dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds
or credit or would have been dishonored for the same
reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason,
ordered the bank to stop payment." The penalty
prescribed for the offense is imprisonment of not less
than 30 days nor more than one year or a fine or not less
than the amount of the check nor more than double said
amount, but in no case to exceed P200,000.00, or both
such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the
court.
POLI RECIT Qs / ARTICLE III, SECTION 20
KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
➔ Petitioners insist that, since the offense under BP 22 is
consummated only upon the dishonor or non-payment
of the check when it is presented to the drawee bank, the
statute is really a "bad debt law" rather than a "bad check
law." What it punishes is the non-payment of the check,
not the act of issuing it. The statute, it is claimed, is
nothing more than a veiled device to coerce payment of
a debt under the threat of penal sanction.
Issue: W/N BP22 is unconstitutional
Held: NO. It is valid and constitutional.
Justice Malcolm, in Ganaway vs. Quillen, stated: "The 'debt'
intended to be covered by the constitutional guaranty has a
well-defined meaning. Organic provisions relieving from
imprisonment for debt, were intended to prevent
commitment of debtors to prison for liabilities arising from
actions ex contractu. The inhibition was never meant to
include damages arising in actions ex delicto, for the reason
that damages recoverable therein do not arise from any
contract entered into between the parties but are imposed
upon the defendant for the wrong he has done and are
considered as punishment, nor to fines and penalties imposed
by the courts in criminal proceedings as punishments for
crime."
The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of
making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is
dishonored upon its presentation for payment. 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 of worthless checks and putting them
in circulation. 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.
It may be constitutionally impermissible for the legislature to
penalize a person for non-payment of a debt ex contractu. But
certainly it is within the prerogative of the lawmaking body to
proscribe certain acts deemed pernicious and inimical to
public welfare. Acts mala in se are not the only acts which the
law can punish. An act may not be considered by society as
inherently wrong, hence, not malum in se, but because of the
harm that it inflicts on the community, it can be outlawed and
criminally punished as malum prohibitum. The state can do
this in the exercise of its police power.
The enactment of BP 22 is a declaration by the legislature that,
as a matter of public policy, the making and issuance of a
worthless check is deemed a public nuisance to be abated by
the imposition of penal sanctions.
The effects of the issuance of a worthless check transcends the
private interests of the parties directly involved in the
transaction and touches the interests of the community at
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
large. The mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the payee
or holder, but also an injury to the public. The harmful practice
of putting valueless commercial papers in circulation,
multiplied a thousandfold, can very well pollute the channels
of trade and commerce, injure the banking system and
eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public interest.

Doctrine: The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is

the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check
that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. 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 of worthless checks and putting them
in circulation. 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.

POLI RECIT Qs / ARTICLE III, SECTION 20

KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva