Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4K views

    Lozano vs. Martinez

    Uploaded by

    Anna Liza Fano
    This case digest summarizes a case regarding the constitutionality of BP 22, a statute criminalizing issuing worthless checks. The petitioner argued that BP 22 violated the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt. However, the court ruled that BP 22 is not intended to coerce payment of a debt, but rather to prohibit issuing worthless checks and protect public order and confidence in the banking system. The court found that BP 22 punishes the act of issuing a worthless check, not the failure to pay a debt, so it does not conflict with the constitutional prohibition.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lozano vs. Martinez

    Uploaded by

    Anna Liza Fano
    4K views1 page
    This case digest summarizes a case regarding the constitutionality of BP 22, a statute criminalizing issuing worthless checks. The petitioner argued that BP 22 violated the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt. However, the court ruled that BP 22 is not intended to coerce payment of a debt, but rather to prohibit issuing worthless checks and protect public order and confidence in the banking system. The court found that BP 22 punishes the act of issuing a worthless check, not the failure to pay a debt, so it does not conflict with the constitutional prohibition.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case digest summarizes a case regarding the constitutionality of BP 22, a statute criminalizing issuing worthless checks. The petitioner argued that BP 22 violated the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt. However, the court ruled that BP 22 is not intended to coerce payment of a debt, but rather to prohibit issuing worthless checks and protect public order and confidence in the banking system. The court found that BP 22 punishes the act of issuing a worthless check, not the failure to pay a debt, so it does not conflict with the constitutional prohibition.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as txt, pdf, or txt
    4K views1 page

    Lozano vs. Martinez

    Uploaded by

    Anna Liza Fano
    This case digest summarizes a case regarding the constitutionality of BP 22, a statute criminalizing issuing worthless checks. The petitioner argued that BP 22 violated the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt. However, the court ruled that BP 22 is not intended to coerce payment of a debt, but rather to prohibit issuing worthless checks and protect public order and confidence in the banking system. The court found that BP 22 punishes the act of issuing a worthless check, not the failure to pay a debt, so it does not conflict with the constitutional prohibition.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as txt, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Case Digest

    FLORENTINA A. LOZANO, petitioner,


    vs.
    THE HONORABLE ANTONIO M. MARTINEZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional
    Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch XX, Manila, and the HONORA
    BLE JOSE B. FLAMINIANO, in his capacity as City Fiscal of Manila, respondents.
    FACTS :
    Among the constitutional objections raised against BP 22, the most serious is th
    e alleged conflict between the statute and the constitutional provision forbiddi
    ng imprisonment for debt. It is contended that the statute runs counter to the i
    nhibition in the Bill of Rights which states, "No person shall be imprisoned for
    debt or non-payment of a poll tax." Petitioners insist that, since the offense
    under BP 22 is consummated only upon the dishonor or non-payment of the check wh
    en it is presented to the drawee bank, the statute is really a "bad debt law" ra
    ther than a "bad check law." What it punishes is the non-payment of the check, n
    ot the act of issuing it. The statute, it is claimed, is nothing more than a vei
    led device to coerce payment of a debt under the threat of penal sanction.
    ISSUE :

    Whether or not BP 22 transgressed the constitutional inhibition against imprison


    ment for debt.

    RULING :
    BP 22 does not conflict with the constitutional inhibition against imprisonment
    for debt.
    The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a
    worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment
    . It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes. The law is
    not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the l
    aw is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks
    and putting them in circulation. Because of its deleterious effects on the publ
    ic interest, the practice is proscribed by the law. The law punishes the act not
    as an offense against property, but an offense against public order.
    Checks have become widely accepted as a medium of payment in trade and commerce.
    Although not legal tender, checks have come to be perceived as convenient subst
    itutes for currency in commercial and financial transactions. The basis or found
    ation of such perception is confidence. If such confidence is shakes the usefuln
    ess of checks as currency substitutes would be greatly diminished. Any practice
    therefore tending to destroy that confidence should be deterred for the prolifer
    ation of worthless checks can only create havoc in trade circles and the banking
    community.

    You might also like