Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 266 views

    Albino Co Vs

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous b4ycWuoIc
    The Supreme Court ruled that Ministry Circular No. 12, which stated that guarantee checks are covered by Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, should not be applied retroactively to prejudice the petitioner. The petitioner had issued a check to guarantee the performance of an obligation, which was previously excluded from BPB 22 coverage under Ministry Circular No. 4. Applying the new circular retroactively would go against the principle that doubts in criminal cases must be resolved in favor of the accused.

    Copyright:

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

    Albino Co Vs

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous b4ycWuoIc
    266 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that Ministry Circular No. 12, which stated that guarantee checks are covered by Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, should not be applied retroactively to prejudice the petitioner. The petitioner had issued a check to guarantee the performance of an obligation, which was previously excluded from BPB 22 coverage under Ministry Circular No. 4. Applying the new circular retroactively would go against the principle that doubts in criminal cases must be resolved in favor of the accused.

    Original Description:

    CrimLaw1

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that Ministry Circular No. 12, which stated that guarantee checks are covered by Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, should not be applied retroactively to prejudice the petitioner. The petitioner had issued a check to guarantee the performance of an obligation, which was previously excluded from BPB 22 coverage under Ministry Circular No. 4. Applying the new circular retroactively would go against the principle that doubts in criminal cases must be resolved in favor of the accused.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    266 views1 page

    Albino Co Vs

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous b4ycWuoIc
    The Supreme Court ruled that Ministry Circular No. 12, which stated that guarantee checks are covered by Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, should not be applied retroactively to prejudice the petitioner. The petitioner had issued a check to guarantee the performance of an obligation, which was previously excluded from BPB 22 coverage under Ministry Circular No. 4. Applying the new circular retroactively would go against the principle that doubts in criminal cases must be resolved in favor of the accused.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Albino Co vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 100776.

    October 28, 1993)

    31MAY
    ALBINO S. CO, petitioner,
    vs.
    COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

    FACTS:
    A criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. The case arise in petitioner’s conviction of
    the crime charged on the basis that a check issued merely to guarantee the performance of an obligation
    is nevertheless covered by B.P. Blg. 22. While case is pending, Ministry of Justice Circular No. 4 (which
    excludes guarantee check from application of B.P. Blg. 22) was subsequently reversed by Ministry Circular
    No. 12 which ruled that a check issued merely to guarantee the performance of an obligation is nonetheless
    covered by B.P. Blg. 22.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Ministry Circular No. 12 dated August 8, 1984 declaring the guarantee check will no longer
    be considered as a valid defense be retroactively applied.

    HELD:
    It would seem that the weight of authority is decidedly in favor of the proposition that a check issued merely
    to guarantee the performance of an obligation is nevertheless covered by B.P. Blg. 22 — should not be
    given retrospective effect to the prejudice of the petitioner and other persons situated, who relied on the
    official opinion that such check did not fall within the scope of B.P. Blg. 22.This is after all a criminal action
    all doubts in which, pursuant to familiar, fundamental doctrine, must be resolved in favor of the accused.
    The Court sees no compelling reason why the doctrine of mala prohibita should overrule the principle of
    prospectivity and its clear implications as above set out and discussed, negating criminal liability.

    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