 |
Font: Georgia
Type of Pen: Sheaffer Calligraphy Pen Broad
|
G.R.
No. 100776, October 28, 1993
Chief
Justice Narvasa
FACTS: Petitioner Albino
Co delivered to the salvaging firm on September 1, 1983 a check drawn against
the Associated Citizens' Bank, postdated November 30, 1983 in the sum of
P361,528.00. 1 The check was deposited on January 3, 1984. It was dishonored
two days later, the tersely-stated reason given by the bank being: "CLOSED
ACCOUNT." A criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 2
was filed by the salvage company against Albino Co with the Regional Trial
Court of Pasay City. The case eventuated in Co's conviction of the crime
charged.
He
argued on appeal that at the time of the issuance of the check on September 1,
1983, some four (4) years prior to the promulgation of the judgment in Que v.
People on September 21, 1987, the delivery of a "rubber" or
"bouncing" check as guarantee for an obligation was not considered a
punishable offense, an official pronouncement made in a Circular of the
Ministry of Justice.
ISSUE: whether the decision issued by the Court be
applied retroactively to the prejudice of the accused.
HELD: No. Pursuant to
Article 8 of the Civil Code "judicial decisions applying or interpreting
the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the
Philippines." But while our decisions form part of the law of the land,
they are also subject to Article 4 of the Civil Code which provides that
"laws shall have no retroactive effect unless the contrary is
provided." This is expressed in the familiar legal maxim lex prospicit,
non respicit, the law looks forward not backward. The rationale against
retroactivity is easy to perceive. The retroactive application of a law usually
divests rights that have already become vested or impairs the obligations of
contract and hence, is unconstitutional
The weight of
authority is decidedly in favor of the proposition that the Court's decision of
September 21, 1987 in Que v. People, 154 SCRA 160 (1987) 14 that a check issued
merely to guarantee the performance of an obligation is nevertheless covered by
B.P. Blg. 22 — should not be given retrospective effect to the prejudice of the
petitioner and other persons situated, who relied on the official opinion of
the Minister of Justice that such a check did not fall within the scope of B.P.
Blg. 22.
Nice post. I find out some thing tougher on various blogs everyday. Most commonly it is stimulating to learn to read content from other writers and exercise a specific thing at their store. I’d would prefer to apply certain while using the content on my own blog whether or not you don’t mind. Natually I’ll supply you with a link on your own internet blog. Thank you for sharing. Website
ReplyDeleteSome genuinely prime posts on this website . https://www.gpwlaw-mi.com/mesotheliomalawfirm
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for this great post. injury claim settlement
ReplyDeleteIt’s appropriate time to make some plans for the future and it is time to be happy. I have read this post and if I could I wish to suggest you few interesting things or advice. Perhaps you could write next articles referring to this article. I desire to read even more things about it! building property protection
ReplyDeleteThis is my first visit to your web journal! We are a group of volunteers and new activities in the same specialty. Website gave us helpful data to work. Online Quran Academy
ReplyDeleteEven though my spouse and i bought on the world wide web firewood on the other hand introducing recognition just a little effect submits. Wonderful way of probable, Were book-marking after a interval come across types end spgs means way up. Waupaca in-home elevator
ReplyDeleteThe Co vs Court of Appeals case digest revolves around legal proceedings and decisions made by the appellate court. The relevance of the batman coat in this context symbolizes the protective role of the court, much like Batman's coat shielding justice, ensuring fairness in legal matters.
ReplyDelete