Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 208 views

    LOZANO v. MARTINEZ

    Uploaded by

    Patricia Kaye Gongora
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Bouncing Check Law does not violate the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt. While the offense is only completed upon the check being dishonored, the law punishes the act of issuing a worthless check, not the failure to pay a debt. Issuing worthless checks that circulate can damage commerce and the banking system. The law aims to prohibit this practice that is detrimental to public order and welfare, using criminal penalties, not to coerce debt repayment. It is a valid exercise of police power.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    LOZANO v. MARTINEZ

    Uploaded by

    Patricia Kaye Gongora
    208 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Bouncing Check Law does not violate the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt. While the offense is only completed upon the check being dishonored, the law punishes the act of issuing a worthless check, not the failure to pay a debt. Issuing worthless checks that circulate can damage commerce and the banking system. The law aims to prohibit this practice that is detrimental to public order and welfare, using criminal penalties, not to coerce debt repayment. It is a valid exercise of police power.

    Original Description:

    LOZANO v. MARTINEZ digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the Bouncing Check Law does not violate the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt. While the offense is only completed upon the check being dishonored, the law punishes the act of issuing a worthless check, not the failure to pay a debt. Issuing worthless checks that circulate can damage commerce and the banking system. The law aims to prohibit this practice that is detrimental to public order and welfare, using criminal penalties, not to coerce debt repayment. It is a valid exercise of police power.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    208 views2 pages

    LOZANO v. MARTINEZ

    Uploaded by

    Patricia Kaye Gongora
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Bouncing Check Law does not violate the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt. While the offense is only completed upon the check being dishonored, the law punishes the act of issuing a worthless check, not the failure to pay a debt. Issuing worthless checks that circulate can damage commerce and the banking system. The law aims to prohibit this practice that is detrimental to public order and welfare, using criminal penalties, not to coerce debt repayment. It is a valid exercise of police power.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    LOZANO V.

    MARTINEZ     
    G.R. NO. L-63419; December 18, 1986 
    YAP, J.: 
     
    FACTS:  Petitioners  were  charged  with  a  violation  of  the  Bouncing  Check  Law  (​Batas 
    Pambansa  Bilang  22).  Said  law  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  creditor would have been dishonored for the same reason had 
    not  the  drawer,  without  any  valid  reason,  ordered  the  bank  to  stop  payment”  which 
    violates  the  inhibition  against  imprisonment  for  debt  explicitly  stated  in  the  Bill  of 
    Rights,  specifically  Art.  3,  sec.  20  which  provides  that  “No  person  shall  be imprisoned 
    for  debt  or  non-payment  of  a  poll  tax."  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:  Whether  or  not  the  Bouncing  Check  Law  ​transgressed  the  constitutional 
    inhibition against imprisonment for debt?  
     
    RULING:  NO.  ​The  enactment  of  ​the  Bouncing  Check  Law  is  a  valid  exercise  of  the 
    police  power  and  is  not  repugnant to the constitutional inhibition against imprisonment 
    for  debt.  The  gravamen  of  the  offense  punished  by  the  law  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  that  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. 
     
    The  effects  of  the  issuance  of  a  worthless  check  transcend  the  private  interests of the 
    parties  directly  involved  in  the  transaction  and  touch  the  interests  of the community at 
    large.  The  mischief  it  creates is not only 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  wen  pollute  the  channels  of  trade  and 
    commerce,  injure  the  banking  system,  and  eventually  hurt  the  welfare  of  society  and 
    the public interest. 
     
    The  enactment  of  ​the  Bouncing Check Law 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. 

    You might also like