This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2003-08-07 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We do not agree. In Ong v. People,[22] we held that what the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check, not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum, provided the other elements of the offense are properly proved.[23] | |||||