Facts:

The consolidated petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus were filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against the Metropolitan Trial Courts of Navotas and Caloocan City. In G.R. No. 152895, petitioner Ofelia V. Arceta was charged with violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. Blg. 22) in Criminal Case No. 1599-CR. The charge stemmed from her issuance of a check for P740,000.00 drawn against The Region Bank on December 21, 1998, which was subsequently dishonored due to insufficient funds. Despite the dishonor and receipt of notice, Arceta failed to make payment within five banking days. She was arraigned on October 21, 2002, pleaded not guilty, but did not file a motion to have the charges dismissed or the information quashed based on the supposed unconstitutionality of B.P. Blg. 22, owing to the precedent set in Lozano v. Martinez (1986) which upheld the law’s validity.

In G.R. No. 153151, petitioner Gloria S. Dy faced similar charges as she allegedly issued a check

...

Facts:

Consolidation of Cases

• Two petitions were consolidated under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus.
• Both petitions challenge the constitutionality of the Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Blg. 22) and argue that its implementation effectively transforms it into a debt–collecting law under threat of imprisonment.

Case of Ofelia V. Arceta (G.R. No. 152895)

• The City Prosecutor of Navotas charged Arceta with violating B.P. Blg. 22 under Criminal Case No. 1599-CR.
• The Information detailed that on or about September 16, 1998, Arceta issued a check (No. 00082270) drawn against The Region Bank in the amount of P740,000.00, despite insufficient funds.
• The check, intended for OSCAR R. CASTRO, was presented within 90 days, dishonored for “DRAWN AGAINST INSUFFICIENT FUNDS,” and despite notice of the dishonor, Arceta did not cover the check’s amount within five banking days.
• Arceta did not initially challenge the constitutionality of B.P. Blg. 22 in the lower court; instead, she relied on the existing Lozano doctrine, which had upheld the validity of the law, and pleaded “not guilty” at her October 21, 2002, arraignment.
• Subsequent to her arraignment, she filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking to halt proceedings in her case and to dismiss the charge on the ground of constitutional infirmity of the law.

Case of Gloria S. Dy (G.R. No. 153151)

• The Office of the City Prosecutor of Caloocan charged Dy with violating the Bouncing Checks Law through Criminal Case No. 212183.
• It was alleged that in January 2000, Dy issued Check No. 0000329230 drawn against PRUDENTIAL BANK in the amount of P2,500,000.00, intended for ANITA CHUA, knowing she lacked sufficient funds.
• The check was dishonored for “ACCOUNT CLOSED” and, although notice was given, Dy failed to satisfy the payment obligation.
• Similar to Arceta, Dy did not seek dismissal in the lower courts on constitutional grounds, relying instead on the prevailing jurisprudence established in Lozano, but later opted to seek judicial review in the Supreme Court.

Underlying Nature of the Petition

• Both petitioners sought to have the Supreme Court reexamine and overturn the Lozano doctrine, which had long validated the statutory scheme of B.P. Blg. 22.
• The petitions also raised supplementary issues about the administrative burden placed on metropolitan trial courts due to the proliferation of bouncing checks cases, questioning whether such courts have effectively become “collection agencies” for creditors.
• Fundamentally, the petitioners argue that the law’s penalty provisions unfairly penalize the act of drawing a check without sufficient funds, regardless of whether the check is later settled.

Issue:

Constitutionality of B.P. Blg. 22

• Whether Section 1 of the law improperly penalizes the mere act of issuing a dishonored check due to insufficient funds.
• Whether Section 2, which addresses the non-payment following dishonor, imposes a debt–collecting function that is punitive in nature.
• Whether the statutory penalties, including the threat of imprisonment for non-payment of a check, violate the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt.

Procedural and Jurisdictional Concerns

• Whether the petitioners have met the requisites for the exercise of judicial review under Rule 65, such as:
• The presence of an actual and appropriate case or controversy.
• A personal and substantial interest in the matter raised.
• The timely and proper raising of the constitutional question at the earliest opportunity in the lower court proceedings.
• Whether the petitions, as filed, are premature because the issues of constitutionality were not raised in the trial court proceedings (i.e., the petitioners did not move to quash the indictments or dismiss the cases on constitutional grounds at the lower level).

Specific Questions Raised

• What is the legal effect when the dishonored check is not paid versus when it is subsequently paid?
• Does the law, by penalizing non-payment after notice, become an instrument of debt collection rather than a criminal sanction?
• Does the law constitute a valid exercise of the state’s police power despite its apparently punitive measures?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)