Case Digest (G.R. No. 75954)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Hon. David G. Nitafan and K.T. Lim alias Mariano Lim, G.R. No. 75954, October 22, 1992, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court.Private respondent K.T. Lim (also sued as Mariano Lim) was charged by the prosecution with violation of B.P. 22 (the Bouncing Check Law) in an Information alleging that he drew and issued Philippine Trust Company Check No. 117383 dated February 9, 1985 for P143,000.00 to Fatima Cortez Sasaki, knowing at the time of issue that he did not have sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank; the check was dishonored for insufficiency of funds and, despite notice, Lim failed to pay or make arrangements within five banking days.
On July 18, 1986, Lim moved to quash the Information on two grounds: (1) that B.P. 22 was unconstitutional, and (2) that the instrument he issued was a memorandum check — effectively a promissory note or merely evidence of a pre‑existing debt — and therefore civil, not criminal. On September 1, 1986, respondent judge Hon. David G. Nitafan, Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 52, Manila, granted the motion and issued an Order quashing the Information on the ground that B.P. 22 was unconstitutional.
The Solicitor General filed a petition for review on certiorari in behalf of the government (a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari), seeking reversal of the quash order. The Court noted that the constitutionality of B.P. 22 had already been sustained in Lozano v. Martinez and several companion ca...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Regional Trial Court correctly quash the Information on the ground that B.P. 22 is unconstitutional?
- Is a memorandum check — issued postdated and in partial payment of a pre‑existing obligation — outside the coverage of B.P. 22 because it is in the natur...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)