Cecilio S. De Villa Vs. Court of Appeals

CECILIO S. DE VILLA, Petitioner,


Vs.


The Honorable Court of Appeals, People of the Philippines, Hon. Job B. Madayag and Roberto Z. Lorayes, Respondents.


G.R. No. 87416, April 8, 1991


Facts:

On October 5, 1987, Petitioner Cecilio S. De Villa was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of NCR (Makati, Branch 145) with violation of BP. 22 (Bouncing Check Law) when the accused unlawfully and feloniously draw and issue a check to Roberto Z. Lorayes to apply on account or for value a depositors trust company check No. 3371 antedated March 31, 1987 with an amount of $ 2,500.00 or equivalent to PHP 50,000.00. The check was issued at the time the accused had no sufficient funds. At the time of presentment, the check was dishonored due to insufficient funds and despite the receipt of notice of such dishonor, said accused failed to pay the respondent, Lorayes, the amount of the check or to make arrangement for the payment of the check within 5 banking days after the receipt of the (Check) Notice.

Petitioner moved to dismiss the case due to the following grounds: That the respondent court has no jurisdiction over the offense and that no offense was committed since the check was payable in dollars, hence, obligation was null and void. Motion to dismiss was denied.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration but was denied by the respondent court due to lack of merit. Under Bouncing Check Law (BP. 22), Foreign checks provided they are drawn and issued in the Philippines, Through payable outside, or made payable and dishonored in the Philippines, are within the coverage of the law. The Bouncing Checks Law is applicable to checks drawn against current accounts in foreign currency.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari to the court of appeals, which was however denied by the court of appeals. Hence, Petitioner elevated the issue to the Supreme Court to reverse and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Issue:

Whether or Not a Foreign Check drawn against a Foreign account is covered by BP. 22.

Held:

Yes. The check was executed and delivered by the petitioner to private respondent in Metro Manila (Makati). However, petitioner contends and argues that the check drawn against a dollar account of a Foreign bank is not covered by BP. 22. But it will be noted that when the law does not make any exception, the court may not except something unless compelling reasons exist to justify it.

The Bouncing Checks Law does not distinguish the currency to which the violation extended and thus, foreign check is covered by the law. The records of the Batasan Vol. III also showed that the lawmaker's intention is to apply the law to whatever currency.

The Petition is dismissed by the court for lack of merit.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation (GMRC) Vs. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Imelda Salazar

Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation (GMRC), Petitioner Vs. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Imelda Salazar, Respondents G.R. No. 82511, March 3, 1992 Facts: Private Respondent, "Imelda Salazar" was employed as general systems analyst of Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. (GMRC) While Delfin Saldivar, her close friend, was employed as technical operations' support manager in May 1982. Petitioner GMRC investigated Saldivar's activities due to the reports indicating that the company equipment and spare parts were in custody of Saldivar. The internal audit report also indicated that Saldivar entered into a partnership with Richard A. Yambao, owner and manager of Eledon Engineering Services (Elecon), a supplier often recommended by Saldivar to the petitioner. It also appeared in the course of Maramara's investigation that Imelda Salazar violated company regulations by involving herself in transactions with conflict of interest with t...
Read more

The Director of Lands Vs. Court of Appeals

The Director of Lands, Petitioner Vs. Court of Appeals and Teodoro Abistado, substituted by Margarita, Marissa, Maribel, Arnold and Mary Ann, all surnamed Abistado, Respondents. G.R. No. 102858, July 28, 1997 Facts : Teodoro Abistado, private respondent, Filed a petition for original registration of his title over 648 square meters of land under P.D. No. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree. The application was docketed as Land Registration Case (LRC) No. 86 and assigned to Branch 44 of the Regional Trial Court of Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro. During the pendency of the case, Teodoro Abistado died and was substituted by his children - Margarita, Marissa, Maribel, Arnold, and Mary Ann, all surnamed Abistado, who were all represented by their aunt Josefa Abistado, ad litem ( act in which a lawsuit has a representative in behalf of children not capable of representation.) Land Registration Court dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction in compliance with the mandatory p...
Read more

The People of the Philippines Vs. Patricio Amigo

The People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee Vs. Patricio Amigo alias "Bebot," Accused-Appellant G.R. No. 116719, January 18, 1996 Facts: On December 29, 1989 at around 1:00 Pm, Benito Ng Suy was driving their gray Ford Fiera back home, with his daughters, Jocelyn Ng Suy and a younger one together with his two year old son. An accidental head on collision occurred between the Fiera and the Tamaraw being driven by one Virgillio Abogado, with Abogado was the accused, Patricio Amigo alias "Bebot". The collision caused slight damage to the right bumper of the Tamaraw. While Abogado and Benito were having a verbal confrontation, Patricio approached Benito asking the latter to leave the incident as it was only a minor incident. However, Benito said that Patricio should not interfere, which made Patricio irritated and caused the latter to stab Benito, rendering the victim into a critical condition which later caused his death due to a sepsis infecti...
Read more