Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3K views

    Lim Vs People (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Glorious El Domine
    Lim vs People involved an appeal of a conviction under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 for issuing two worthless checks. The petitioner purchased jewelry using two postdated checks that were later dishonored when the bank account was closed. The Court affirmed the conviction, finding that the elements of the offense were met as the checks were issued and later dishonored upon presentment. However, the prison sentence was removed and replaced with a fine double the amounts of the checks, in line with the philosophy of redemption under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The moral damages and attorney's fees awards were also deleted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lim Vs People (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Glorious El Domine
    3K views3 pages
    Lim vs People involved an appeal of a conviction under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 for issuing two worthless checks. The petitioner purchased jewelry using two postdated checks that were later dishonored when the bank account was closed. The Court affirmed the conviction, finding that the elements of the offense were met as the checks were issued and later dishonored upon presentment. However, the prison sentence was removed and replaced with a fine double the amounts of the checks, in line with the philosophy of redemption under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The moral damages and attorney's fees awards were also deleted.

    Original Description:

    Lim vs People (Digest)

    Original Title

    Lim vs People (Digest)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Lim vs People involved an appeal of a conviction under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 for issuing two worthless checks. The petitioner purchased jewelry using two postdated checks that were later dishonored when the bank account was closed. The Court affirmed the conviction, finding that the elements of the offense were met as the checks were issued and later dishonored upon presentment. However, the prison sentence was removed and replaced with a fine double the amounts of the checks, in line with the philosophy of redemption under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The moral damages and attorney's fees awards were also deleted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    3K views3 pages

    Lim Vs People (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Glorious El Domine
    Lim vs People involved an appeal of a conviction under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 for issuing two worthless checks. The petitioner purchased jewelry using two postdated checks that were later dishonored when the bank account was closed. The Court affirmed the conviction, finding that the elements of the offense were met as the checks were issued and later dishonored upon presentment. However, the prison sentence was removed and replaced with a fine double the amounts of the checks, in line with the philosophy of redemption under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The moral damages and attorney's fees awards were also deleted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Lim vs People

    G.R. No. 130038


    Sep.18, 2000

    INTRO:

    The case is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming in toto that of the Regional Trial Court,
    Cebu City. Both courts found petitioner Rosa Lim guilty of twice violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 and imposing
    on her two one-year imprisonment for each of the two violations and ordered her to pay two fines, each
    amounting to P200,000.00.

    The trial court also ordered petitioner to return to Maria Antonia Seguan, the jewelry received or its value with
    interest, to pay moral damages, attorneys fees and costs.

    FACTS:

    On August 25, 1990, petitioner bought various kinds of jewelry worth P300,000.00 from Maria Antonia Seguan. She
    wrote out a check with the same amount, dated August 25, 1990, payable to cash drawn on Metrobank and gave
    the check to Seguan.

    The next day, petitioner again went to Seguans store and purchased jewelry valued at P241,668.00. Petitioner
    issued another check payable to cash dated August 16, 1990 drawn on Metrobank in the amount of P241,668.007
    and sent the check to Seguan through a certain Aurelia Nadera.

    Seguan deposited the two checks with her bank. The checks were returned with a notice of dishonor. Petitioners
    account in the bank from which the checks were drawn was closed.

    Upon demand, petitioner promised to pay Seguan the amounts of the two dishonored checks, but she never did.
    On June 5, 1991, an Assistant City Prosecutor of Cebu filed with the RTC, Cebu City, Branch 23, two informations
    against petitioner for violations of BP No. 22.

    After due trial, on December 29, 1992, the trial court rendered a decision in the two cases convicting petitioner.
    Petitioner appealed to the CA, but the same was dismissed by the CA in its October 15, 1996 Decision wherein it
    affirmed in toto the RTCs Decision.

    ISSUE:

    Negotiable Instruments Law


    Case Digest
    Glorio Ortega Dumandan, Jr.

    WON Lim violated B.P. No. 22.

    HELD:

    The elements of B.P. Blg. 22 are:

    (1) The making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value;
    (2) The knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or
    credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment; and
    (3) The subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for
    the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.

    The gravamen of B.P. No. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or one that is dishonored upon
    its presentment for payment. And the accused failed to satisfy the amount of the check or make arrangement
    for its payment within 5 banking days from notice of dishonor. The act is malum prohibitum, pernicious and
    inimical to public welfare. Laws are created to achieve a goal intended and to guide and prevent against an evil or
    mischief. Why and to whom the check was issued, and the terms & conditions surrounding the issuance of the
    checks, are irrelevant in determining culpability.

    Under BP No. 22, one need not prove that the check was issued in payment of an obligation, or that there was
    damage.

    It was ruled in United States v. Go Chico, that in acts mala prohibita, the only inquiry is, has the law been
    violated? When dealing with acts mala prohibita it is not necessary that the appellant should have acted
    with criminal intent. In many crimes, the intention of the person who commits the crime is entirely
    immaterial
    This case is a perfect example of an act mala prohibita. The first and last elements of the offense are admittedly
    present. B.P. No. 22, Section 2 creates a presumption juris tantum that the second element prima facie exists
    when the first and third elements of the offense are present . If not rebutted, it suffices to sustain a conviction.
    To escape liability, she must prove that the second element was absent. Petitioner failed to rebut this presumption
    and she failed to pay the amount of the checks or make arrangement for its payment within 5 banking days from
    receipt of notice of dishonor. B.P. No. 22 was clearly violated. Hoc quidem per quam durum est sed ita lex scripta
    est. The law may be exceedingly hard but so the law is written.

    However, the penalty imposed on petitioner must be modified. In Vaca v. Court of Appeals[298 SCRA 658 (1998)], it
    was held that in determining the penalty to be imposed for violation of B.P. No. 22, the philosophy underlying the
    Indeterminate Sentence Law applies. The philosophy is to redeem valuable human material, and to prevent
    unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness with due regard to the protection of the
    social order. The prison sentence imposed on petitioners is deleted, and imposed on them only a fine double the
    amount of the check issued.

    Negotiable Instruments Law


    Case Digest
    Glorio Ortega Dumandan, Jr.

    Consequently, the prison sentences imposed on petitioner are deleted. The two fines imposed for each violation,
    each amounting to P200,000.00 are appropriate and sufficient. The award of moral damages and order to pay
    attorneys fees are deleted for lack of sufficient basis.

    Negotiable Instruments Law


    Case Digest
    Glorio Ortega Dumandan, Jr.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy