ARCETA v MANGROBANG

[G.R. No. 152895. June 15, 2004.]

Relief: assail the constitutionality of the Bouncing Checks Law; petitions certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus, with prayers for a temporary restraining order.
Ofelia V. Arceta: cease and desist from hearing for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, and then dismiss the case
against her.
Facts:
First Petition
- Ofelia V. Arceta 16th day of September 1998, in Navotas, Metro Manila did then make or draw
and issue to OSCAR R. CASTRO, to apply on account or for value the check The Region Bank -
P740,000.00
- Ofelia V. Arceta did not have sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank for the payment
- "DRAWN AGAINST INSUFFICIENT FUNDS," WITHIN 90 DAYS
- The accused failed to pay said payee within five (5) banking days.
- Arceta did not move to have the charge against her dismissed or the Information quashed
- on the ground that B.P. Blg. 22 was unconstitutional.
- She reasoned out that with the Lozano doctrine still in place, was highly unlikely that the trial
court would grant her motion
Second Petition
- Gloria Dy was charged for violating BP 22 by the Caloocan City Prosecutor January 2000
- Dy issued a check against Prudential Bank amounting to P2,500,000 dated 19 Jan 2000 in favor
of Anita Chua
- Check was dishonored for the reason ACCOUNT CLOSED
- Despite notice of dishonor, Dy still failed to pay Chua
- Dy made no move to dismiss charges on the ground that BP 22 is unconstitutional
- She also used the same reasoning made by Arceta (i.e., Lozano Doctrine is still in operation).
Issue: whether or not B.P. Blg. 22. Is constitutional
Held: Yes. the instant petitions are DISMISSED for utter lack of merit
Ratio:
- the Court may exercise its power of judicial review only if the following requisites are present:
(1) an actual and appropriate case and controversy exists; (2) a personal and substantial interest
of the party raising the constitutional question; (3) the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at
the earliest opportunity; and (4) the constitutional question raised
- they have ignored the hierarchy of courts - Thus, the petitioners should have moved to quash
the separate indictments or moved to dismiss the cases inthe proceedings in the trial court
-