Arceta vs Mangrobang

- consolidated cases
Case 1
The City Prosecutor of Navotas charged Ofelia V. Arceta with violating
Batas Pambansa 22, also known as the Bouncing Checks Law in an
information that on or about September 16, 1998, Arceta issued a Regional
Bank check worth P740,000 (postdated December 21, 1998) to Oscar R.
Castro, payable in cash. At the time of issue, Arceta did not have sufficient
funds or credit with the drawee bank and her check was subsequently
dishonored by drawee bank for reason “drawn against insufficient funds”.
Case 2
The City Prosecutor of Caloocan filed a charge sheet against Gloria S. Dy for
violation of Bouncing Checks Law in an alleged information that on the
month of January 2000, Dy issued Prudential Bank Check in the amount of
P2,500,000 dated January 19, 2000 in favour of Anita Chua but it was denied
due to insufficient funds.
Issue: Whether or not the court should render BP Blg. 22 unconstitutional
due to (1) the present economic and financial crisis and (2) the undue burden
made upon the MeTCs to try bouncing check cases.
Ratio:
When the issue of constitutionality of a legislative act is raised, it is an
established doctrine that the court may exercise its power of judicial review
only if the following requisites are present [see requisites of judicial review].
In the case at bar, the court agreed that the requisites were adequately met by
the petitioners.
The court did not find the constitutional question raised by the petitioners to
be the very lis mota of the case.
In the nullification of a certain law, there must be a clear and unequivocal
breach of the Constitution, and not one that is doubtful, speculative or
argumentative.