Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

Recuerdo vs People

F: Petitoner was found guilty in violation of BP 22 where out of the 9 checks she issued as payment for the jewelry
she bought from Yolanda Floro, 5 were dishonored by the bank. A demand letter was sent to her and upon failure
to make payments, a complaint was filed by which she was found guilty. On petition for certiorari, she contends
that BP 22 is unconstitutional.
I: WON BP 22 is unconstitutional.
R: The court upheld the constitutionality of BP 22 citing the landmark case of Lozano v Martinez
where it was held that BP 22 punishes the act of making and issuing worthless checks. It is not the non-payment of
debt or obligation which the law punishes and the law does not coerce the debtor to pay debt but the main
objective of the law is the prohibition and penalizing the making of worthless checks and putting them in
circulation. Such act is against public order.

Are checks issued as an evidence of debt covered by BP 22?

Yes. A check issued as an evidence of debt, though not intended for encashment, has the same effect like any
other check. It is within the contemplation of B.P. 22, which is explicit that any person who makes or draws and
issues any check to apply for an account or for value, 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. (Recuerdo vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 133036. January 22, 2003)

Negotiable Instruments Law


Case Disgest
Glorio Ortega Dumandan, Jr.

Вам также может понравиться