Case Digest - Magno VS Ca

ORIEL MAGNO, Petitioner, vs.
CA and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents
G.R. NO. 96132 | June 26, 1992
Justice Paras
Topic: Utilitarian Theory
FACTS:
Petitioner was in the process of putting up a car repair shop, but did not have complete
equipment that could make his venture workable. He also lacked funds with which to
purchase the necessary equipment to make such business operational. Thus, petitioner,
representing Ultra Sources International Corporation, approached Corazon Teng,
(private complainant) Vice President of Mancor Industries (hereinafter referred to as
Mancor) for his needed car repair service equipment of which Mancor was a distributor.
Mancor was willing and able to supply the pieces of equipment needed if LS Finance
could accommodate petitioner and provide him credit facilities.
The arrangement went through on condition that petitioner has to put up a warranty
deposit equivalent to thirty per centum (30%) of the total value of the pieces of
equipment to be purchased. Since petitioner could not come up with such amount, he
requested Joey Gomez on a personal level to look for a third party who could lend him
the equivalent amount of the warranty deposit, however, unknown to petitioner, it was
Corazon Teng who advanced the deposit in question, on condition that the same would
be paid as a short term loan at 3% interest.
After the documentation was completed, the equipment were delivered to petitioner
who in turn issued a postdated check and gave it to Joey Gomez who, unknown to the
petitioner, delivered the same to Corazon Teng. When the check matured, Petitioner
requested through Joey Gomez not to deposit the check as he (Magno) was no longer
banking with Pacific Bank. To replace the check, petitioner issued 6 postdated checks, 2
of which were cleared and the remaining 4 were not covered by sufficient funds.
Subsequently, petitioner could not pay LS Finance the monthly rentals, thus it pulled
out the garage equipments.
The RTC found accused-petitioner guilty and charged him of violation of BP Blg. 22.
Thus, this appeal by certiorari.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not petitioner should be held liable for violation of BP Blg. 22.
RULING:
NO. Under the utilitarian theory, the "protective theory" in criminal law, "affirms that
the primary function of punishment is the protective (sic) of society against actual and
potential wrongdoers." Corollary to this is the application of the theory that “criminal
law is founded upon that moral disapprobation of actions which are immoral, i.e.,
which are detrimental to those conditions upon which depend the existence and
progress of human society.
Thus, it behooves upon a court of law that in applying the punishment imposed upon
the accused, the objective of retribution of a wronged society, should be directed against
the "actual and potential wrongdoers." In the instant case, there is no doubt that
petitioner's four (4) checks were used to collateralize an accommodation, and not to
cover the receipt of an actual "account or credit for value" as this was absent, and
therefore petitioner should not be punished for mere issuance of the checks in question.
Following the aforecited theory, in petitioner's stead the "potential wrongdoer", whose
operation could be a menace to society, should not be glorified by convicting the
petitioner.
Furthermore, the element of "knowing at the time of issue that he does not have
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full
upon its presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason . . .
is inversely applied in this case. From the very beginning, petitioner never hid the fact
that he did not have the funds with which to put up the warranty deposit and as a
matter of fact, he openly intimated this to the vital conduit of the transaction, Joey
Gomez, to whom petitioner was introduced by Mrs. Teng. It would have been different
if this predicament was not communicated to all the parties he dealt with regarding the
lease agreement the financing of which was covered by L.S. Finance Management.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is REVERSED and the accused-petitioner is

hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged.
PRINCIPLES/DOCTRINE:
The utilitarian theory, the "protective theory" in criminal law, "affirms that the
primary function of punishment is the protective (sic) of society against actual and
potential wrongdoers." Corollary to this is the application of the theory that “criminal
law is founded upon that moral disapprobation of actions which are immoral, i.e.,
which are detrimental to those conditions upon which depend the existence and
progress of human society.

Case Digest - Magno VS Ca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest - Magno VS Ca

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest - Magno VS Ca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ORIEL MAGNO, Petitioner, vs.

CA and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents

G.R. NO. 96132 | June 26, 1992

Topic: Utilitarian Theory

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is REVERSED and the accused-petitioner is

You might also like