2 Lozano v. Martinez (Digest)
2 Lozano v. Martinez (Digest)
2 Lozano v. Martinez (Digest)
Martinez
Facts:
Petitioners were charged with violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (Bouncing
Check Law). They moved seasonably to quash the informations on the ground
that the acts charged did not constitute an offense, the statute being
unconstitutional. The motions were denied by the respondent trial courts, except in
one case, wherein the trial court declared the law unconstitutional
and dismissed the case. The parties adversely affected thus appealed.
Issue:
Held:
may become nil. Any practice therefore tending to destroy that confidence should
be deterred for the proliferation of worthless checks can only create havoc in trade
circles and the banking community.
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.
2. The freedom of contract which is constitutionally protected is freedom to enter
into lawful contracts. Contracts which contravene public policy are not lawful.
Besides, we must bear in mind that checks can not be categorized as mere
contracts. It is a commercial instrument which, in this modem day and age, has
become a convenient substitute for money; it forms part of the banking system and
therefore not entirely free from the regulatory power of the state.
3. There is no substance in the claim that the statute in question denies equal
protection of the laws or is discriminatory, since it penalizes the drawer of the
check, but not the payee. It is contended that the payee is just as responsible for
the crime as the drawer of the check, since without the indispensable participation
of the payee by his acceptance of the check there would be no crime. This
argument is tantamount to saying that, to give equal protection, the law should
punish both the swindler and the swindled. The petitioners posture ignores the
well-accepted meaning of the clause equal protection of the laws. The clause does
not preclude classification of individuals, who may be accorded different treatment
under the law as long as the classification is not unreasonable
or arbitrary. (Lozano vs Martinez, G.R. No. L-63419, December 18, 1986)
- See more at: http://legalvault.blogspot.com/2014/12/lozano-vs-martinezdigest.html#sthash.trGnnYWT.dpuf