Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. DAVID G. NITAFAN

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 158312 2008-11-14	JOHN DY v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
During the joint pre-trial conference of this case, Dy admitted that he issued the checks, and that the signatures appearing on them were his.[29] The facts reveal that the checks were issued in blank because of the uncertainty of the volume of products to be retrieved, the discount that can be availed of, and the deduction for bad orders. Nevertheless, we must stress that what the law punishes is simply the issuance of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating thereto.[30] If inquiry into the reason for which the checks are issued, or the terms and conditions of their issuance is required, the public's faith in the stability and commercial value of checks as currency substitutes will certainly erode.[31]
	GR No. 154438 2007-09-05	ALICIA F. RICAFORTE v. LEON L. JURADO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check; that is, a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment.[17] In Lozano v. Martinez,[18] we have declared that 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 and circulation of worthless checks. 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.[19] In People v. Nitafan,[20] we said that a check issued as an evidence of debt though not intended to be presented for payment has the same effect as an ordinary check and would fall within the ambit of B.P. Blg. 22.
	GR NO. 149937 2007-06-21	ISMAEL F. MEJIA v. PEOPLE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
It must be emphasized that the gravamen of the offense charge is the issuance of a bad check.[4] The purpose for which the check was issued, the terms and conditions relating to its issuance, or any agreement surrounding such issuance are irrelevant to the prosecution and conviction of petitioner.[5] To determine the reason for which checks are issued, or the terms and conditions for their issuance, will greatly erode the faith the public reposes in the stability and commercial value of checks as currency substitutes, and bring havoc in trade and in banking communities.[6] The clear intention of the framers of B.P. 22 is to make the mere act of issuing a worthless check malum prohibitum.[7]
	GR No. 160893 2005-11-18	SONIA P. RUIZ v. PEOPLE CALLEJO, SR., J.
In Lozano v. Martinez,[24] this Court ruled that the gravamen of the offense is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or any check that is dishonored upon its presentment for payment and putting them in circulation. The law includes all checks drawn against banks.[25] The law was designed to prohibit and altogether eliminate the deleterious and pernicious practice of issuing checks with insufficient or no credit or funds therefor. Such practice is deemed a public nuisance, a crime against public order to be abated. The mere act of issuing a worthless check, either as a deposit, as a guarantee, or even as an evidence of a pre-existing debt or as a mode of payment is covered by B.P. 22. It is a crime classified as malum prohibitum.[26] The law is broad enough to include, within its coverage, the making and issuing of a check by one who has no account with a bank, or where such account was already closed when the check was presented for payment. As the Court in Lozano explained: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 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. As aptly stated
	GR No. 125297 2003-06-06	ELVIRA YU OH v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In People vs. Nitafan,[37] the Supreme Court reiterated this point and held that:B.P. Blg. 22 ... does not distinguish but merely provides that "[a]ny person who makes or draws and issues any check knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank ... which check is subsequently dishonored ... shall be punished by imprisonment ... Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus.
	GR No. 133325 2000-06-30	FELIPA B. CUEME v. PEOPLE BELLOSILLO, J.
The checks issued, even assuming they were not intended to be encashed or deposited in a bank, produce the same effect as ordinary checks. What the law punishes is the issuance of a rubber check itself and not the purpose for which the check was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance.[34] This is not without good reasons. To determine the purpose as well as the terms and conditions for which checks are issued will greatly erode the faith the public reposes in the stability and commercial value of checks as currency substitutes, and bring about havoc in the trading and banking communities.[35] Besides, the law does not make any distinction as to the kind of checks which are the subject of its provisions, hence, no such distinction can be made by means of interpretation or application. What is important is the fact that petitioner deliberately issued the checks in question and those checks were dishonored upon presentment for payment.