Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 152 views

    Magno vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Daryl Yu
    Magno was charged with violating the Bouncing Checks Law for issuing checks to LS Finance that bounced due to insufficient funds. The Court of Appeals found Magno guilty. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision and acquitted Magno. The Supreme Court ruled that Magno did not violate the law because he never received the "warranty deposit" that the checks were supposedly paying, as the money remained with LS Finance. Additionally, Magno was upfront that he lacked the funds for the deposit and sought a third party loan, so he did not knowingly issue checks without sufficient funds. The elements of the crime were not present given the circumstances of the transaction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Magno vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Daryl Yu
    152 views2 pages
    Magno was charged with violating the Bouncing Checks Law for issuing checks to LS Finance that bounced due to insufficient funds. The Court of Appeals found Magno guilty. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision and acquitted Magno. The Supreme Court ruled that Magno did not violate the law because he never received the "warranty deposit" that the checks were supposedly paying, as the money remained with LS Finance. Additionally, Magno was upfront that he lacked the funds for the deposit and sought a third party loan, so he did not knowingly issue checks without sufficient funds. The elements of the crime were not present given the circumstances of the transaction.

    Original Description:

    Magno v. CA digest

    Original Title

    33. Magno vs. CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Magno was charged with violating the Bouncing Checks Law for issuing checks to LS Finance that bounced due to insufficient funds. The Court of Appeals found Magno guilty. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision and acquitted Magno. The Supreme Court ruled that Magno did not violate the law because he never received the "warranty deposit" that the checks were supposedly paying, as the money remained with LS Finance. Additionally, Magno was upfront that he lacked the funds for the deposit and sought a third party loan, so he did not knowingly issue checks without sufficient funds. The elements of the crime were not present given the circumstances of the transaction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    152 views2 pages

    Magno vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Daryl Yu
    Magno was charged with violating the Bouncing Checks Law for issuing checks to LS Finance that bounced due to insufficient funds. The Court of Appeals found Magno guilty. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision and acquitted Magno. The Supreme Court ruled that Magno did not violate the law because he never received the "warranty deposit" that the checks were supposedly paying, as the money remained with LS Finance. Additionally, Magno was upfront that he lacked the funds for the deposit and sought a third party loan, so he did not knowingly issue checks without sufficient funds. The elements of the crime were not present given the circumstances of the transaction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CRIMINAL LAW I

    ISSUES
    1. W/N Magno violated BP 22.
    Magno v. Court of Appeals
    G.R. NO. | Crimes Mala in se and Mala prohibita RULING
    1. NO. By the nature of the “warranty deposit” amounting to
    DOCTRINE/LESSON OF THE CASE P29,790.00 corresponding to 30% of the “purchase/lease” value of
    ● Courts should not apply special penal laws mechanically. They should the equipments subject of the transaction, it is obvious that the
    not convict a drawer for issuing checks that bounced where the “cash out” made by Mrs. Teng was not used by petitioner who was
    payee is herself the wrongdoer, as where drawer never obtained the just paying rentals for the equipment.
    money representing a warranty deposit already returned and payee
    who still asked for payment thereof by said checks. To charge the petitioner for the refund of a “warranty deposit”
    which he did not withdraw as it was not his own account, it having
    FACTS remained with LS Finance, is to even make him pay an unjust
    ● APPEAL by certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals “debt,” to say the least, since petitioner did not receive the amount
    ● Oriel Magno, lacking fund in acquiring complete set of equipment to in question. All the while, said amount was in the safekeeping of the
    make his car repair shop operational, approached Corazon Teng, Vice financing company, which is managed, supervised and operated by
    President of Mancor Industries. the corporation officials and employees of LS Finance.

    ● VP Teng referred Magno to LS Finance and Management When viewed against the following definitions of the catch-terms
    Corporation, advising its Vice President, Joey Gomez, that Mancor “warranty’ and “deposit”, for which the postdated checks were
    was willing to supply the pieces of equipment needed if LS Finance issued or drawn, all the more, the alleged crime could not have
    could accommodate Magno and and provide him credit facilities. been committed by petitioner. The checks were not drawn or issued
    “to apply on account or for value.
    ● The arrangement went on requiring Magno to pay 30% (P29,790) of
    the total amount of the equipment as warranty deposit but Magno Furthermore, the element of “knowing at the time of issue that he
    couldn't afford to pay so he requested VP Gomez to look for third does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for
    party who could lend him that amount. Without Magno's the payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which
    knowledge, Corazon was the one who provided that amount. check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for
    ● As payment to the equipment, Magno issued six checks, two of them insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for
    were cleared and the rest had no sufficient fund (“account closed”). the same reason x x x” is inversely applied in this case. From the
    very beginning, petitioner never hid the fact that he did not have
    ● Because of the unsuccessful venture, Magno failed to pay LS Finance the funds with which to put up the warranty deposit and as a
    which then pulled out the equipment. matter of fact, he openly intimated this to the vital conduit of the
    transaction, Joey Gomez, to whom petitioner was introduced by
    ● Magno was charged of violation of BP Blg. 22 (The Bouncing Checks Mrs. Teng.
    Law) and found guilty.

    G01-2023 1
    DISPOSITIVE POSITION
    WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is REVERSED and the accused-petitioner
    is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged.

    SO ORDERED.

    RELEVANT LAWS
    The elements of the offense under Section 1 of B.P. Blg. 22 are:

    (1) drawing and issuance of any check to apply on account or for value;

    (2) knowledge by the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he
    did not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the
    payment of such check in full upon presentment; and

    (3) said 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.

    G01-2023 2

    You might also like