2 Lozano v. Martinez (Digest)

Lozano v. Martinez

Facts:

Petitioners were charged with violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (Bouncing Check Law). They moved seasonably to uash the informations informations on the ground that the acts charged did not constitute an o!ense" the statute being unconstitutional. The motions were denied by the res#ondent trial courts" e$ce#t in one case" wherein the trial court declared the law unconstitutional and dismissed the case. The #arties adversely a!ected thus a##ealed.

Issue:

%. &hether or not BP 22 is violative of the constitutional constitutional #rovision on non' im#risonment due to debt 2. &hether it im#airs freedom of contract . &hether it contravenes the eual #rotection clause

Held:

1. The

enactment of BP 22 is a valid e$ercise of the #olice #ower and is not re#ugnant re#ugnant to the constitutional inhibition against im#risonment for debt. The gravamen of the o!ense #unished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored u#on its #resentation for #ayment. t is not the non'#ayment of an obligation which the law #unishes. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to #ay his debt. The thrust of the law is to #rohibit" #rohibit" under #ain of #enal sanctions" the making of worthless checks and #utting them in circulation. Because of its deleterious e!ects on the #ublic interest" the #ractice is #roscribed by the law. The law #unishes the act not as an o!ense against #ro#erty" but an o!ense against #ublic order. *nlike a #romissory note" a check is not a mere undertaking to #ay an amount of money. t is an order addressed to a bank and #artakes of a re#resentation that the drawer has funds on de#osit against which the check is drawn" su+cient to ensure #ayment u#on its #resentation to the bank. There is therefore an element of certainty or assurance that the instrument will be #aid u#on #resentation. ,or this reason" checks have become widely acce#ted as a medium of #ayment in trade and commerce. -lthough not legal tender" checks have come to be #erceived as convenient substitutes for currency in commercial and nancial transactions. The basis or foundation of such #erce#tion is condence. f such condence is shaken" the usefulness of checks as currency substitutes would be greatly diminished or

The world's largest digital library

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

The world's largest digital library

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

may become nil. -ny #ractice therefore tending to destroy that condence should be deterred for the #roliferation of worthless checks can only create havoc in trade circles and the banking community.  The e!ects of the the issuance of of a worthless worthless check transcends transcends the #rivate #rivate interests interests of the #arties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the community at large. The mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the #ayee or holder" but also an in/ury to the #ublic. The harmful #ractice #ractice of #utting valueless commercial #a#ers in circulation" circulation" multi#lied a thousand fold" can very wen #ollute the channels of trade and commerce" in/ure the banking system and eventually hurt the welfare of society and the #ublic interest. 2. The

freedom of contract which is constitutionally #rotected #rotected is freedom to enter into 0lawful1 contracts. Contracts which contravene #ublic #olicy are not lawful. Besides" we must bear in mind that checks can not be categoried as mere contracts. t is a commercial instrument which" in this modem day and age" has become a convenient substitute for money3 it forms #art of the banking system and therefore not entirely free from the regulatory #ower of the state.

3. There

is no substance in the claim that the statute in uestion denies eual #rotection #rotection of the laws or is discriminatory" since it #enalies the drawer of the check" but not the #ayee. t is contended that the #ayee is /ust as res#onsible for the crime as the drawer of the check" since without the indis#ensable indis#ensable #artici#ation of the #ayee by his acce#tance of the check there would be no crime. This argument is tantamount to saying that" to give eual #rotection" the law should #unish both the swindler and the swindled. The #etitioners4 #osture ignores the well'acce#ted meaning of the clause 0eual #rotection of the laws.1 The clause does not #reclude classication of individuals" who may be accorded di!erent di!erent treatment under the law as long as the classication is not unreasonable or arbitrary. arbitrary. (Lozano vs Martinez, G.R. No. L-63419, December 18, 1986) ' 5ee more at6 htt#677legalvault.blogs#ot.com728 htt#677legalvault.blogs#ot.com728%97%27loano'vs'mar %97%27loano'vs'martine' tine' digest.html:sthash.tr;nn<&T.d#uf