Case Summary (G.R. No. 207324)
Facts
K.T. Lim issued Philippine Trust Company Check No. 117383 for ₱143,000 to Fatima Cortez Sasaki, knowing at issuance that his account lacked sufficient funds. The check, postdated February 9, 1985, was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Despite notice, Lim failed to pay or arrange payment within five banking days.
Procedural History
Lim moved to quash the Information on grounds that B.P. 22 was unconstitutional and that his memorandum check was effectively a promissory note, thus outside the statute’s scope. RTC Branch 52 granted the motion, declaring B.P. 22 unconstitutional. The Solicitor General petitioned for certiorari to reverse that order.
Issue
Whether a memorandum check—bearing the words “memorandum,” “memo,” or “mem” and issued in partial satisfaction of a pre-existing obligation—falls within the coverage of B.P. 22.
Applicable Law
- 1987 Constitution, Article III, §9 (valid exercise of police power; imprisonment for nonpayment not prohibited when penal sanction for issuing bad checks)
- B.P. 22 §1: Penalizes issuance of checks knowing there are insufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank, if dishonored
- Negotiable Instruments Law §185: Defines a check as a bill of exchange drawn on a bank payable on demand
Legal Analysis
Constitutionality of B.P. 22
• Supreme Court previously upheld B.P. 22 in Lozano v. Martinez and related cases, affirming it as a valid exercise of police power and not a prohibited imprisonment for debt.Nature of Memorandum Check
• A memorandum check is in form identical to an ordinary check, drawn on a bank, payable on demand, and carries an unconditional order to pay.
• Notwithstanding the drawer’s private understanding that it is evidence of indebtedness, upon presentment it is treated like any other check and valid in the hands of a bona fide holder.
• Distinct from a promissory note, which is a mere promise to pay and not drawn on a bank. If Lim wished exemption, he could have issued a promissory note instead.Legislative Intent
• B.P. 22 was crafted to be comprehensive, targeting all checks drawn on banks to curb the proliferation of worthless instruments.
• Batasang Pambansa records show deletion of terms technically referring to promissory notes, focusing the law solely on bank checks.Purpose of the Statute
• Penal sanction attaches to the mere issuance of a worthless check, regardless of its label or the d
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 207324)
Facts of the Case
- On January 10, 1985, K.T. Lim issued Philippine Trust Company Check No. 117383 dated February 9, 1985, in the amount of ₱143,000.00, payable to Fatima Cortez Sasaki
- At the time of issuance, Lim knew he lacked sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank
- The check was presented, dishonored for insufficiency of funds, and Lim received notice of dishonor
- Despite notice, Lim failed to pay or make arrangements for full payment within five banking days
Procedural History
- July 18, 1986: Lim moved to quash the Information, arguing B.P. 22 was unconstitutional and that his “memorandum check” was akin to a promissory note
- September 1, 1986: The Regional Trial Court, Branch 52, Manila, quashed the Information on the ground that B.P. 22 was unconstitutional
- October 22, 1992: The Solicitor General filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, seeking to reverse the quashal
Issues Presented
- Whether B.P. 22 (the Bouncing Check Law) is unconstitutional (previously resolved in Lozano v. Martinez)
- Whether a memorandum check issued in partial payment of a pre-existing obligation falls outside the coverage of B.P. 22
Arguments of Private Respondent
- B.P. 22 is unconstitutional (argued but foreclosed by Lozano v. Martinez)
- A memorandum check is functionally a promissory note—evidence of indebtedness rather than an order on a bank
- Such checks should be enforced in a civil action, not punished under a criminal statute
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
- Reaffirmed constitutionali