CASE DIGEST STATCON
Presumption against Unconstitutionality
Lim vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 149276, Sept.7, 2002
Facts:
In December 1991, petitioner spouses issued to private respondent two
postdated checks. It was dishonored upon presentment for having been drawn
against insufficient funds.
The private respondent filed a complaint-affidavit before the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Quezon City charging petitioner spouses with the crime of estafa
under Article 315, par. 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by PD 818.
On February 16, 2001, the City Prosecutor issued a resolution finding probable
cause against petitioners and recommending the filing of an information for
estafa with no bail recommended. On the same day, an information for the
crime of estafa was filed with Branch 217 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City against petitioners and the trial court issued a warrant for the arrest of
herein petitioners
On July 18, 2001, petitioners filed an Urgent Motion to Quash Information and
Warrant of Arrest which was denied by the trial court. Likewise, petitioners
motion for bail filed on July 24, 2001 was denied by the trial court on the same
day.
Petitioner Jovencio Lim was arrested by virtue of the warrant of arrest issued by
the trial court and was detained at the Quezon City Jail.
On August 22, 2001, petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari imputing
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the lower court and the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Quezon City, arguing that PD 818 violates the constitutional
provisions on due process, bail and imposition of cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment.
Issue:
Whether or not PD 818 violates Sections 1 and 19 of Article III of the
Constitution
Ruling:
Settled is the rule that a punishment authorized by statute is not cruel,
degrading or disproportionate to the nature of the offense unless it is flagrantly
and plainly oppressive and wholly disproportionate to the nature of the offense
as to shock the moral sense of the community. It takes more than merely being
harsh, excessive, out of proportion or severe for a penalty to be obnoxious to
the Constitution.
Based on this principle, the Court has consistently overruled contentions of the
petitioner that the penalty of fine or imprisonment authorized by the statute
involved is cruel and degrading.
PD 818 does not violate Section 19 of Article III of the Constitution.
Moreover, when a law is questioned before the Court, the presumption is in
favor of its constitutionality.
To justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unmistakable breach of the
Constitution, not a doubtful and argumentative one. 4 The burden of proving the
invalidity of a law rests on those who challenge it.
In this case, petitioners failed to present clear and convincing proof to defeat
the presumption of constitutionality of PD 818.
