Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SONIA P. RUIZ v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 187174 2013-08-28	FELY Y. YALONG v. PEOPLE PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The MTCC found all the elements of the crime charged to have been duly established. It did not give credence to Yalong's defense that she did not own the checking account and that she was not the one who issued the subject check. On this score, it cited the case of Ruiz v. People[12] wherein it was held that "[BP 22] 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."[13] Further, it observed that Yalong failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that she has completely paid the loan and thus, such defense must likewise fail.[14]
	GR No. 177438 2012-09-24	AMADA RESTERIO v. PEOPLE BERSAMIN, J.
What Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 punished was the mere act of issuing a worthless check. The law did not look either at the actual ownership of the check or of the account against which it was made, drawn, or issued, or at the intention of the drawee, maker or issuer. Also, that the check was not intended to be deposited was really of no consequence to her incurring criminal liability under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. In Ruiz v. People,[10] the Court debunked her contentions and cogently observed: In Lozano v. Martinez, 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. 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. 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:
	GR No. 169364 2009-09-18	PEOPLE v. EVANGELINE SITON Y SACIL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Criminally, public order laws encompass a whole range of acts - from public indecencies and immoralities, to public nuisances, to disorderly conduct. The acts punished are made illegal by their offensiveness to society's basic sensibilities and their adverse effect on the quality of life of the people of society. For example, the issuance or making of a bouncing check is deemed a public nuisance, a crime against public order that must be abated.[33] As a matter of public policy, the failure to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods covered by a trust receipt or to return said goods, if not sold, is a public nuisance to be abated by the imposition of penal sanctions.[34] Thus, public nuisances must be abated because they have the effect of interfering with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property by members of a community.
	GR No. 149995 2007-09-28	ISIDRO PABLITO M. PALANA v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Hence, the agreement surrounding the issuance of a check is irrelevant to the prosecution and conviction of the petitioner.[27]
	GR No. 154438 2007-09-05	ALICIA F. RICAFORTE v. LEON L. JURADO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In fact, petitioner's argument that respondent was aware of the fact that the subject checks were only accommodation checks in favor of Aguilar is not a defense against a charge for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. In Ruiz v. People of the Philippines,[26] where the accused interposed the defense of accommodation party, we held:It bears stressing that, whether a person is an accommodation party is a question of intent. When the intent of the parties does not appear on the face of the check, it must be ascertained in the light of the surrounding facts and circumstances. Invariably, the tests applied are the purpose test and the proceeds test. x x x. And even assuming she was such party, this circumstance is not a defense to a charge for violation of B.P. 22. What the law punishes is the issuance itself of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was issued or of the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. The mere act of issuing a worthless check, whether merely as an accommodation, is covered by B.P. 22. Hence, the agreement surrounding the issuance of a check is irrelevant to the prosecution and conviction of the petitioner.[27]
	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. 149723 2006-10-27	PEOPLE v. VICTOR KEITH FITZGERALD AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
When this Court grants a new trial, it vacates both the judgment of the trial court convicting the accused[31] and the judgment of the CA affirming it,[32] and remands the case to the trial court for reception of newly-discovered evidence and promulgation of a new judgment,[33] at times with instruction to the trial court to promptly report the outcome.[34] The Court itself does not conduct the new trial for it is no trier of facts.[35]
	GR NO. 144054 2006-06-30	NIEVES A. SAGUIGUIT v. PEOPLE GARCIA, J.
It bears stressing that, whether a person is an accommodation party is a question of intent. When the intent of the parties does not appear on the face of the check, it must be ascertained in the light of the surrounding facts and circumstances. Invariably, the tests applied are the purpose test and the proceeds test. xxx. What the law punishes is the issuance itself of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was issued or of the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. The mere act of issuing a worthless check, whether merely as an accommodation, is covered by B.P. 22. Hence, the agreement surrounding the issuance of a check is irrelevant to the prosecution and conviction of the petitioner. xxx.[12]