Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 141 views

    Arceta v. Mangrobang

    Uploaded by

    Jude Fanila
    The petitioners question the constitutionality of the Bouncing Checks Law but the Supreme Court does not rule on its validity. The Court finds that the requisites for judicial review have not been met as the petitioners did not first raise the constitutional issue in the lower courts, and they failed to establish an actual case or controversy or show a grave abuse of discretion. The petitions are dismissed for lack of merit.

    Copyright:

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

    Arceta v. Mangrobang

    Uploaded by

    Jude Fanila
    141 views3 pages
    The petitioners question the constitutionality of the Bouncing Checks Law but the Supreme Court does not rule on its validity. The Court finds that the requisites for judicial review have not been met as the petitioners did not first raise the constitutional issue in the lower courts, and they failed to establish an actual case or controversy or show a grave abuse of discretion. The petitions are dismissed for lack of merit.

    Original Description:

    Constitutional Law - 1

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners question the constitutionality of the Bouncing Checks Law but the Supreme Court does not rule on its validity. The Court finds that the requisites for judicial review have not been met as the petitioners did not first raise the constitutional issue in the lower courts, and they failed to establish an actual case or controversy or show a grave abuse of discretion. The petitions are dismissed for lack of merit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    141 views3 pages

    Arceta v. Mangrobang

    Uploaded by

    Jude Fanila
    The petitioners question the constitutionality of the Bouncing Checks Law but the Supreme Court does not rule on its validity. The Court finds that the requisites for judicial review have not been met as the petitioners did not first raise the constitutional issue in the lower courts, and they failed to establish an actual case or controversy or show a grave abuse of discretion. The petitions are dismissed for lack of merit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Arceta v.

    Mangrobang
    G.R. 152985 – June 15, 2004
    J. Quisumbing

    Digest Author: Warren Chu

    Topic: Necessity of Deciding Constitutional Questions


    - The case touched more on whether or not requisites for judicial review were met
    - Petitioners question the constitutionality of BP Blg 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law but fail to
    meet the requisites for judicial review

    Complete Title:

    OFELIA V. ARCETA, petitioner, vs. The Honorable MA. CELESTINA C. MANGROBANG,


    Presiding Judge, Branch 54, Metropolitan Trial Court of Navotas, Metro Manila, respondent.
    G.R. No. 152985

    GLORIA S. DY, petitioner, vs. The Honorable EDWIN B. RAMIZO, Presiding Judge, Branch 53,
    Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City, respondent
    G.R. No. 153151

    Petitioners: Ofelia V. Arceta (GR 152985) and Gloria S. Dy (GR 153151)


    Respondents: Ma. Celestina C. Mangrobang (GR 152985) and Edwin B. Ramizo (GR 153151)

    FACTS:
     The case is composed of two consolidated petitions under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, for
    certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, with prayers for temporary restraining order. Petitioners
    assail the constitutionality of Batasang Pambansa Bilang 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law
     Facts for G.R. 152985
    o City Prosecutor of Navotas charged petitioner Arceta with violating BP Blg 22. City
    Prosecutor alleges that:
     On September 16, 1998, petitioner Arceta issued a check to a certain Oscar R.
    Castro for the amount of P740,000 while having insufficient funds.
     Petitioner Arceta (the accused in this case) failed to pay despite receipt of the notice
    of dishonor.
    o Petitioner did not move to have the charges dismissed on the grounds that BP Blg 22 is
    unconstitutional. She mentions the Lozano doctrine which served as jurisprudence
    upholding the validity of BP Blg. 22.
    o On October 22, 2002, Arceta was arraigned and pleaded “not guilty”
     Facts for G.R. 153151
    o City Prosecutor of Caloocan charged petitioner Gloria S. Dy for violating the Bouncing
    Checks Law. City Prosecutor alleges that:
     On January 2000, Dy issued a check for the amount P2,500,000 to Anita Chua
    even when her account was closed and still refused to pay despite receipt of notice
    of dishonor.
    o Like Arceta, Dy did not move to dismiss the charges for the same reasons as Arceta.
    o Petitioner Dy filed a petition before SC invoking its power of judicial review to have the
    said law voided for constitutional infirmity.
     FACTS SUMMARY: Both Dy and Arceta issued checks that bounced. Both failed to pay. They
    got charged for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law but did not move to dismiss the charge
    because of the Lozano doctrine (see notes). Now, they are before the SC filing the said petitions.
     Both petitioners raised the following issues (summarized, however, by the SC):
    o Does Sec 1 really penalize the act of issuing a check subsequently dishonored by the bank
    for lack of funds?
    o What is the effect if the dishonored check is not paid pursuant to section 2 of BP 22?
    o What is the effect if it is so paid?
    o Does section 2 make BP 22 a debt collecting law under threat or imprisonment?
    o Does BP 22 violate the constitutional proscription against imprisonment for non-payment
    of debt?
    o Is BP 22 a valid exercise of the police power of the states?

    ISSUES + HELD:
    1. W/N B.P. Blg 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law is unconstitutional or invalid
    o Statement of the Court’s holding: Court does not rule on the validity of this statute
    because the requisites for judicial review were not met
    o Court reiterates the requisites for the exercise of its power for judicial review
     An actual and appropriate case and controversy exists
     A personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional question
     The exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity
     The constitutional question raised is the very lis mota of the case
    o As for the special civil action for certiorari
     Petitioners must manifest that there was a grave abuse of discretion
     Instant petitions were devoid of attachments or annexes in the form of a copy of
    an order, decision, or resolution issued by respondent judges
     Petitioners only included the copies of Informations and nothing else
    o Petitions for a writ of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus do not qualify as the actual
    and appropriate cases contemplated by the rules as the first requisite for the exercise of
    judicial review.
    o Petitioners also ignored the hierarchy of courts
     Seeking judicial review at the earliest opportunity does not mean immediately
    elevating the matter to the SC; should have been raised at the lower courts first
     Petitioners failed to move to quash the charges based on unconstitutionality of
    BP Blg 22
    o The constitutionality of BP Blg 22 does not seem to be the very lis mota presented in the
    controversy
     Petitioners failed to persuade the Court that the Bouncing Checks Law
    transgressed a provision of the Constitution
     No clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution

    RULING: Court dismisses the petition for lack of merit

    FULL DISPOSITIVE TEXT: WHEREFORE, the instant petitions are DIMSISSED for utter lack of
    merit.

    NOTES:

    Lozano Doctrine
    - stems from the case of Lozano v. Martinez
    - Court upheld the validity of the Bouncing Checks Law and declared that BP Blg 22 is a valid
    exercise of police power
    - The law does not punish the non-payment of the obligation but the issuance of worthless checks. It
    is considered an offense against public order. The law aims to prevent circulation of worthless
    checks by penalizing issuance of such.

    Sec. 1 of BP Blg 22

    Section 1. Checks without sufficient funds. – Any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply
    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 such check infull upon its 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, shall be
    punished by imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year or by a fine of not less
    than but not more than double the amount of the check which fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred
    Thousand Pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.

    The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who, having sufficient funds in or credit with the
    drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to maintain
    a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of ninety (90) days from the date
    appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank.

    Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person or persons who actually signed
    the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act.

    Sec. 2 of BP Blg 22

    Section 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. – The making, drawing and issuance of a check
    payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when
    presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge
    of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due
    thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within (5) banking days
    after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.

    You might also like