Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CELIA M. MERIZ v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 176795 2008-06-30	SPS. CAROLINA AND REYNALDO JOSE v. SPS. LAUREANO AND PURITA SUAREZ TINGA, J,
In the first place, the validity or invalidity of the interest rate is not determinative of the guilt of respondents in the criminal cases. The Court has consistently declared that the cause or reason for the issuance of a check is inconsequential in determining criminal culpability under B.P. Blg. 22.[25] In several instances, we have held that what the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was issued or the terms and conditions relating to its issuance; and that the mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum provided the other elements of the offense are properly proved.[26]
	GR No. 176795 2008-06-30	SPS. CAROLINA AND REYNALDO JOSE v. SPS. LAUREANO AND PURITA SUAREZ TINGA, J,
The nature and policy of B.P. Blg. 22 were aptly enunciated by the Court in Meriz v. People,[27] when it stated:x x x. [B.P. Blg.] 22 does not appear to concern itself with what might actually be envisioned by the parties, its primordial intention being to instead ensure the stability and commercial value of checks as being virtual substitutes for currency. It is a policy that can easily be eroded if one has yet to determine the reason for which checks are issued, or the terms and conditions for their issuance, before an appropriate application of the legislative enactment can be made. The gravamen of the offense under [B.P. Blg.] 22 is the act of making or issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon presentment for payment. The act effectively declares the offense to be one of malum prohibitum. The only valid query then is whether the law has been breached, i.e., by the mere act of issuing a bad check, without so much regard as to the criminal intent of the issuer.[28]
	GR No. 152666 2008-04-23	MARCIANO TAN v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK CARPIO MORALES, J.
The element of "knowledge" involves a state of mind that obviously would be difficult to establish, hence, the statute creates a prima facie presumption of knowledge on the insufficiency of funds or credit coincidental with the attendance of the two other elements.[19]
	GR No. 149275 2004-09-27	VICKY C. TY v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
The law itself creates a prima facie presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds. Section 2 of B.P. 22 provides: Section 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. - The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee bank 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 five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee. Such knowledge is legally presumed from the dishonor of the checks for insufficiency of funds.[46] If not rebutted, it suffices to sustain a conviction.[47]
	GR No. 155815 2004-07-14	KENNETH NGO v. PEOPLE PANGANIBAN, J.
the 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 cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.[19] In the instant case, we find no reason to depart from the CA's findings, which petitioner does not rebut. Present are all these elements constituting a violation of BP 22: "1) [Petitioner] issued EBC Check Nos. [2]2976156 and 22976157 in partial settlement of his obligation to Northern Hill Development; "2) The checks were deposited by the complainant but were subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds; "3) [Petitioner] knew that at the time he issued the postdated checks, he had no sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank; x x x [and he failed] to redeem the checks within five (5) days from written demand by the complainant for payment."[20]
	GR No. 148557 2003-08-07	FELICITO ABARQUEZ v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In Meriz v. People,[11] it was held that the essential elements of the offense penalized under BP Blg. 22 are: The making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply to account or for value;
	GR No. 133036 2003-01-22	JOY LEE RECUERDO v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
"BP 22 does not appear to concern itself with what might actually be envisioned by the parties, its primordial intention being to instead ensure the stability and commercial value of checks as being virtual substitutes for currency. It is a policy that can be easily eroded if one has yet to determine the reason for which checks are issued, or the terms and conditions for their issuance, before an appropriate application of the legislative enactment can be made."[29] (Emphasis supplied)