LOZANO v. MARTINEZ G.R No. L-63419. December 18, 1986 (CASE DIGEST)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE
POLICE POWER

FLORENTINA A. LOZANO, petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE ANTONIO M. MARTINEZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, National Capital Region, Branch XX, Manila, and HONORABLE JOSE B. FLAMINIANO, in his capacity as City Fiscal of Manila, respondents.

X X X X X X

G.R. No. L-63419. December 18, 1986

YAP, J.:

FACTS:

This is a consolidated case, the petition arose from cases involving prosecution of offenses under the BP 22 also known as Bouncing Check Law. The defendant in these case moved seasonably to quash the information on the ground that the acts charged did not constitute an offense, the statute being unconstitutional. The motions were denied by the respondent trial court, except in one case, which is the subject of G.R No. 75789, wherein the trial court declared the law unconstitutional and dismissed the case. The parties adversely affected have come to the court for remedy. Those who question the constitutionality of the said statute insist the following ground:

1) It offends the constitutional provision forbidding imprisonment for debt;

2) it impairs freedom of contract;

3) it contravenes the equal protection clause;

4) it unduly delegates legislative and executive powers; and

5) its enactment is flawed in the sense that during its passage the interim Batasan violated the constitutional provision prohibiting to a bill on Third Reading.

ISSUE:

Whether or not BP 22 or the Bouncing Check Law is unconstitutional.

RULING:

No, the enactment of the assailed statute is a valid exercise of Police power and is not repugnant to the constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for debt. It may be constitutionally impermissible for the legislature to penalize a person for non-payment of debt ex contractu, but certainly it is within the prerogative of the lawmaking body to prescribe certain acts deemed pernicious and inimical to public welfare. Acts mala in se are not only acts which the law can punish. An act may not be considered by society as inherently wrong, hence, not malum in se, but because of the harm that it inflicts on the community, it can be outlawed and criminally punished as malum prohibitum. The state can do this in the exercise of its police power. 

The enactment of the said statute is a declaration by the legislature that, as a matter of public policy, the making and issuance of a worthless check is deemed a public nuisance to be abated by the imposition of penal sanctions.

Full text: The Lawphil Project