|
|
|
|
|
WHAT THE LAW PUNISHES |
|
|
|
True, it is common practice in commercial transactions to require debtors to issue checks on which creditors must rely as guarantee of payment, or as evidence of indebtedness, if not a mode of payment. But to determine the reason for which checks are issued, or the terms and conditions for their issuance, will greatly erode the faith the public reposes in the stability and commercial value of checks as currency substitutes, and bring about havoc in trade and in banking communities. 8. People vs. Nitafan, etc., et al., October 22, 1992, G.R. No. 75954, 215 SCRA 79; Notes and Comments on the Bouncing Checks Law, by Judge David Nitafan. So, what the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum. Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, June 17, 1994, G.R. No. 108738, 233 SCRA 301. Justice Torres, SECOND DIVISION, RICARDO A. LLAMADO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent, [G.R. No. 99032. March 26, 1997.]
|
| home top |
|
|
|
For inquiries or comments,
you may contact the webmaster |
|
|
