Case Digest (G.R. No. 75954)
Facts:
- The People of the Philippines are the petitioners.
- Respondents are Hon. David G. Nitafan, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52, Manila, and K.T. Lim alias Mariano Lim.
- On January 10, 1985, in Manila, K.T. Lim issued a Philippine Trust Company Check No. 117383 dated February 9, 1985, for P143,000.00 to Fatima Cortez Sasaki.
- Lim knew he did not have sufficient funds in the drawee bank at the time of issuance.
- The check was dishonored due to insufficient funds.
- Despite receiving notice of dishonor, Lim failed to pay Sasaki or make arrangements for full payment within five banking days.
- On July 18, 1986, Lim moved to quash the Information, arguing B.P. 22 was unconstitutional and the check was a memorandum check, akin to a promissory note, thus civil in nature.
- On September 1, 1986, Judge Nitafan ruled B.P. 22 unconstitutional and quashed the Information.
- The Solicitor General, on behalf of the government, filed a petition for review on certiorari.
- The Supreme Court had previously upheld B.P. 22's constitutionality in Lozano v. Martinez and related cases.
- The issue remained whether a memorandum check issued postdated for partial payment of a pre-existing obligation falls under B.P. 22.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- Yes, a memorandum check issued postdated in partial payment of a pre-existing obligation is within the coverage of B.P. 22.
- No, a memorandum check cannot be equated with...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The Supreme Court ruled that a memorandum check, despite being marked as such, is still a check drawn on a bank and falls within the definition of a check under Section 185 of the Negotiable Instruments Law.
- A memorandum check is an evidence of debt against the drawer and has the same effect as an ordinary check.
- If passed to a third person, it is valid in their hands like any other check.
- The Court rejected the argument that a memorandum check is akin to a promissory note. Lim could have issued a promissory note if that was his intent, which would have exempted him from B.P. 22.
- B.P. 22 does not distinguish between different types of checks but penalizes the issuance of any check with knowledge of insufficient funds in the drawee bank....continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 75954)
Facts:
The case involves the People of the Philippines as the petitioner and Hon. David G. Nitafan, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52, Manila, and K.T. Lim alias Mariano Lim as respondents. On January 10, 1985, in Manila, K.T. Lim issued a Philippine Trust Company Check No. 117383 dated February 9, 1985, amounting to P143,000.00 to Fatima Cortez Sasaki. Lim was aware that he did not have sufficient funds in the drawee bank at the time of issuance. The check was subsequently dishonored due to insufficient funds, and despite receiving notice of the dishonor, Lim failed to pay Sasaki the amount of the check or make arrangements for full payment within five banking days. On July 18, 1986, Lim moved to quash the Information, arguing that B.P. 22 was unconstitutional and that the check he issued was a memorandum check, which he claimed was in the nature of a promissory note and thus civil in nature. On September 1, 1986, Judge Nitafan ruled that B.P. 22 was unconstitutional and quashed the Information. The Solicitor General, on behalf of the government, filed a petition for review on certiorari. The Supreme Court had previously upheld the constitutionality of B.P. 22 in Lozano v. Martinez and related cases. The remaining issue was whether a memorandum check issued postdated in partial payment of a pre-existing obligation falls within the coverage of B.P. 22.
Issue:
- Is a memorandum check, issued postdated in partial payment of a pre-existin...