Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Group A.

The accusatory portion of the complaint reads:

That on or about the 10th day of September 2000, the said accused issued to the
undersigned Allied Bank Check No. 0089099 in the amount of P2,208,398.40, a xerox
copy of which being attached hereto as Annex “A,” knowing fully well that at that
time she had no funds with said Bank, and which when deposited in the
undersigned’s depositary Bank (the Bank of the Philippine Islands, Cauayan, Isabela
Branch) for collection/payment, was dishonored by said Allied Bank on October 02,
2000 on the ground of “account closed” to the damage and prejudice of the
undersigned in the said amount of P2,208,398.40.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Is the Information sufficient in form and substance? Justify you Answer

If it is not sufficient, what remedy is available to the Accused? On the side of the prosecution, what
can it do if there is a defect in the Information?

Group B

In June 2010, Bambi requested to borrow from Anita money in the amount of Php100,000.00 with
10% interest per month until the principal amount shall be fully paid. She proposed to pay the
entire amount plus the interest 10 months thereafter or in April 2011. Anita agreed provided that
Bambi will issue a postdated check as payment in the amount of Php200,000.00 dated April 15,
2011. On the date of the check, Anita deposited the check but the same was dishonored by the
drawee bank for the reason “Account Closed”. Through her lawyer, Anita gave a written notice of
dishonour to Bambi and demanded that the latter pay her within five (5) days from receipt of said
demand. Since Bambi was unable to pay the amount demanded, Anita sued Bambi for violation of
B.P. Blg. 22 before the MTCC of Cebu City

During arraignment, Bambi moved for the suspension of the proceedings on the ground that she
filed a petition before the RTC for the annulment of the interest rate agreed upon by the parties for
being unconscionable, following the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Medel vs.
Court of Appeals. She contends that the case before the RTC constitutes as a prejudicial question to
the case of B.P. Blg 22.

Is Bambi correct in her assertion that the issue of the 10% monthly interest agreed upon by her and
Anita constitute as a prejudicial question to the case for violation of B.P. Blg. 22?

How should the MTCC resolve the motion to suspend the proceedings that Bambi filed?
Group C

In October 1997, Cristita extended a loan to Amy in the amount of P200,000, to bear interest at 10%
a month. After the latter had partially paid her obligation, she failed to settle the balance thereof
which had reached P380,000 inclusive of interest. Cristita then filed a collection suit against Amy,
which was eventually settled when she paid the former P200,000[5] and issued in her favor a check
in the amount of P160,000 representing interest. When the check was presented for payment on
February 9, 1999, it was dishonored for having been Drawn Against Insufficient Funds (DAIF).
Cristita, through counsel, thus sent a letter to Amy by registered mail informing her that the check
was dishonored by the drawee bank, and demanding that she make it good within five (5) days from
receipt thereof.

During trial, Amy argues that the first element of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 – the making, drawing, and
issuance of any check “to apply on account or for value” – was not present, as the obligation to pay
interest is void, the same not being in writing and the 10% monthly interest is unconscionable. Is
she correct? How should the court rule on this issue?

Further, Amy argues that absence of proof of receipt by him of a written notice of dishonor since
only the registry receipt was presented by the prosecution. Is her argument tenable?

Group D

Rene had a loan from ABC Bank in the amount of P1million. He was required by the bank to issue
checks to cover the monthly instalment payments and to execute a mortgage of his real property in
favour of the bank. When Rene defaulted in the payment of his loan as the checks that he issued
were all dishonoured for the reason “Account Closed”, the bank filed cases for violation of B.P. Blg.
22 for the checks which Rene issued to cover the monthly instalment payments. It also filed for
foreclosure of the real property mortgaged to secure Rene’s loan.

Are the actions of the bank correct?

Can the bank pursue the civil liability of Rene in the cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22? On the other
hand, can the bank reserve its right to pursue the civil liability of Rene in a separate civil action?
Group E

Merly has been borrowing money from Inday, an informal money lender. In the course of their
regular business, Merly issued checks payable to Inday in 15 day intervals in exchange for the cash
that she receives. Due to some problems in her business, Merly’s checks totalling “Php800,000.00
were dishonoured by the bank when presented for the reason “Account Closed”.

Inday made a written demand for Merly to pay her obligations. In her letter reply to Inday, Merly
sought for a reconciliation of her accountability and expressed her willingness to pay. Two months
after, Merly’s husband paid Php200,000.00 and he undertook to settle the remaining balance in
instalments. Considering that the balance remain unsettled for more than 2 years from the last
payment made by Merly’s husband, Inday sued Merly for violation of B.P. Blg. 22.

Merly’s defense is that there was a novation of her civil liability when her husband made a partial
payment.

Is Merly’s defense correct? Justify your answer

Вам также может понравиться