Arceta v.

Mangrobang
G.R. 152985 – June 15, 2004
J. Quisumbing

Digest Author: Warren Chu

Topic: Necessity of Deciding Constitutional Questions

- The case touched more on whether or not requisites for judicial review were met
- Petitioners question the constitutionality of BP Blg 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law but fail to
meet the requisites for judicial review

Complete Title:

OFELIA V. ARCETA, petitioner, vs. The Honorable MA. CELESTINA C. MANGROBANG,

Presiding Judge, Branch 54, Metropolitan Trial Court of Navotas, Metro Manila, respondent.
G.R. No. 152985

GLORIA S. DY, petitioner, vs. The Honorable EDWIN B. RAMIZO, Presiding Judge, Branch 53,
Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City, respondent
G.R. No. 153151

Petitioners: Ofelia V. Arceta (GR 152985) and Gloria S. Dy (GR 153151)

Respondents: Ma. Celestina C. Mangrobang (GR 152985) and Edwin B. Ramizo (GR 153151)

FACTS:
 The case is composed of two consolidated petitions under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, with prayers for temporary restraining order. Petitioners
assail the constitutionality of Batasang Pambansa Bilang 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law
 Facts for G.R. 152985
o City Prosecutor of Navotas charged petitioner Arceta with violating BP Blg 22. City
Prosecutor alleges that:
 On September 16, 1998, petitioner Arceta issued a check to a certain Oscar R.
Castro for the amount of P740,000 while having insufficient funds.
 Petitioner Arceta (the accused in this case) failed to pay despite receipt of the
notice of dishonor.
o Petitioner did not move to have the charges dismissed on the grounds that BP Blg 22 is
unconstitutional. She mentions the Lozano doctrine which served as jurisprudence
upholding the validity of BP Blg. 22.
o On October 22, 2002, Arceta was arraigned and pleaded “not guilty”
 Facts for G.R. 153151
o City Prosecutor of Caloocan charged petitioner Gloria S. Dy for violating the Bouncing
Checks Law. City Prosecutor alleges that:
 On January 2000, Dy issued a check for the amount P2,500,000 to Anita Chua
even when her account was closed and still refused to pay despite receipt of
notice of dishonor.
o Like Arceta, Dy did not move to dismiss the charges for the same reasons as Arceta.
o Petitioner Dy filed a petition before SC invoking its power of judicial review to have the
said law voided for constitutional infirmity.
  FACTS SUMMARY: Both Dy and Arceta issued checks that bounced. Both failed to pay. They
got charged for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law but did not move to dismiss the charge
because of the Lozano doctrine (see notes). Now, they are before the SC filing the said petitions.
 Both petitioners raised the following issues (summarized, however, by the SC):
o Does Sec 1 really penalize the act of issuing a check subsequently dishonored by the
bank for lack of funds?
o What is the effect if the dishonored check is not paid pursuant to section 2 of BP 22?
o What is the effect if it is so paid?
o Does section 2 make BP 22 a debt collecting law under threat or imprisonment?
o Does BP 22 violate the constitutional proscription against imprisonment for non-payment
of debt?
o Is BP 22 a valid exercise of the police power of the states?

ISSUES + HELD:
1. W/N B.P. Blg 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law is unconstitutional or invalid
o Statement of the Court’s holding: Court does not rule on the validity of this statute
because the requisites for judicial review were not met
o Court reiterates the requisites for the exercise of its power for judicial review
 An actual and appropriate case and controversy exists
 A personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional question
 The exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity
 The constitutional question raised is the very lis mota of the case
o As for the special civil action for certiorari
 Petitioners must manifest that there was a grave abuse of discretion
 Instant petitions were devoid of attachments or annexes in the form of a copy of
an order, decision, or resolution issued by respondent judges
 Petitioners only included the copies of Informations and nothing else
o Petitions for a writ of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus do not qualify as the actual
and appropriate cases contemplated by the rules as the first requisite for the exercise of
judicial review.
o Petitioners also ignored the hierarchy of courts
 Seeking judicial review at the earliest opportunity does not mean immediately
elevating the matter to the SC; should have been raised at the lower courts first
 Petitioners failed to move to quash the charges based on unconstitutionality of BP
Blg 22
o The constitutionality of BP Blg 22 does not seem to be the very lis mota presented in the
controversy
 Petitioners failed to persuade the Court that the Bouncing Checks Law
transgressed a provision of the Constitution
 No clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution

RULING: Court dismisses the petition for lack of merit

FULL DISPOSITIVE TEXT: WHEREFORE, the instant petitions are DIMSISSED for utter lack of
merit.

NOTES:

Lozano Doctrine
 - stems from the case of Lozano v. Martinez
- Court upheld the validity of the Bouncing Checks Law and declared that BP Blg 22 is a valid
exercise of police power
- The law does not punish the non-payment of the obligation but the issuance of worthless checks.
It is considered an offense against public order. The law aims to prevent circulation of worthless
checks by penalizing issuance of such.

Sec. 1 of BP Blg 22

Section 1.  Checks without sufficient funds.  – Any person who makes or draws and issues any check to

apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check infull upon its presentment, which check is
subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been
dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop
payment, shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year or
by a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check which fine shall in no case
exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.

The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who, having sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to maintain
a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of ninety (90) days from the
date appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank.

Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person or persons who actually signed
the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act.

Sec. 2 of BP Blg 22

Section 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. – The making, drawing and issuance of a check
payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank,
when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima facie evidence of
knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof
the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within
(5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.