G.R. No.
L-63419 December 18, 1986
FLORENTINA A. LOZANO vs. THE HONORABLE ANTONIO M. MARTINEZ, and the
HONORABLE JOSE B. FLAMINIANO
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTS:
The petitions arose from cases involving prosecution of offenses under the statute Batas Pambansa
Bilang 22, knows as the Bouncing Check Law. The defendants in those cases moved seasonably
to quash the informations on the ground that the acts charged did not constitute an offense,
challenging the statute being unconstitutional.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the BP Bilang 22 a valid exercise of police power.
HELD:
YES. The police power of the state has been described as "the most essential, insistent and
illimitable of powers" which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety and
welfare of society.
The enactment of BP 22 is a declaration by the legislature that, as a matter of public policy, the
making and issuance of a worthless check is deemed public nuisance to be abated by the imposition
of penal sanctions. The Court held that it is not for the Court to question the wisdom or impolicy
of the statute. Unlike a promissory note, a check is not a mere undertaking to pay an amount of
money. It is an order addressed to a bank and partakes of a representation that the drawer has funds
on deposit against which the check is drawn, sufficient to ensure payment upon its presentation to
the bank. There is therefore an element of certainty or assurance that the instrument wig be paid
upon presentation. For this reason, checks have become widely accepted as a medium of payment
in trade and commerce. Although not legal tender, checks have come to be perceived as convenient
substitutes for currency in commercial and financial transactions.
The effects of the issuance of a worthless check transcends the private interests of the parties
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 payee or holder, but also an injury to the public. The
harmful practice of putting valueless commercial papers in circulation, multiplied a thousand fold,
can very wen pollute the channels of trade and commerce, injure the banking system and eventually
hurt the welfare of society and the public interest.
The Court, therefore, finds the enactment of BP 22 a valid exercise of the police power and is not
repugnant to the constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for debt.
