CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2

(Notes and Cases)

By

Atty. GALLANT D. SORIANO, MNSA

Lt. Col. PN (M)
NON-IMPRISONMENT
FOR DEBT
(Article III, Section 20)
 NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT

Art. III, Sec. 20 - No person shall

BASIC
PROVISION be imprisoned for debt or non-
payment of poll tax.

a. compassionate rule;

b. as an added guaranty of the liberty of persons;

REASON
c. against their incarceration for the enforcement
of purely private debts;

d. because only of their misfortune of being poor.

Restraint of trade
 DEFINITION OF TERMS

a. any civil obligation arising from contract, expressed or

DEBT implied.

a. specific fixed sum;

POLL TAX b. levied upon every person belonging to a certain class;

polltaxt sedula CA NOT be imprisoned

c. without regard to his property or profession.

a. social justice policy;

REASON
b. towards the millions of impoverished masses;
FOR
EXEMPTION c. who cannot afford even the minimal cost of basic
community tax certificate.
 NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT
1. trial court ordered the arrest of the
defendant for failure, owing to his
insolvency, to pay past and present support.
Supreme Court held that the arrest was
invalid because the Order, in effect,
authorized his imprisonment for debt in
violation of the Constitution.
2. where a judge issued a warrant of arrest
on the strength of criminal complaint
charging the accused with willful non-
payment of debt, Supreme Court annulled
the warrant.
Martin vs. Sura
G.R. No. L-25091. Nov. 29, 1968
Sheriff’s report was that,
Martin is INSOLVENT, thus
he is the one responsible.
ALSO, imprisonment for
debt due to FAILURE to
support HIS child, is in
VIOLATION of the
Constitution.
Civil Obligation NOT Penal/Criminal Obligation
Serafin vs. Lindayag
A.M. No. 297. Sept. 30, 1975
Respondent Judge Lindayag ERRED on
imposing imprisonment upon Serafin.
Serafin committed SIMPLE
INDEBTEDNESS not ESTAFA.
 NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT
What is being punished is the ISSUANCE of A
WORTHLESS CHECK and putting them in CIRCULATION.

3. while debtor cannot be imprisoned for

Such action is DELETERIOUS to PUBLIC INTEREST. The
action is punishable NOT because it is an offense
against property, BUT because it is an offense AGAINST
PUBLIC ORDER. The action CREATES HAVOC in trade

failure to pay his debt, he can be validly

circles and the banking community.

Lozano vs. Martinez

punished in a criminal action if he G.R. No. L-63419. Dec. 18, 1986
CHECKS were perceived to be

contracted his debt through fraud.

convenient and was given an image of
CONFIDENTIALITY.
Checks become a convenient substitute for
money. It FORM PART of the BANKING SYSTEM
and therefore NOT entirely FREE from
REGULATORY POWER of the STATE.

4. BP 115 (Trust Receipts Law) is a valid MEMORANDUM CHECKS are NOT in the nature of
PROMISSORY NOTE (which contains only

exercise of police power and does not violate

“promise to pay”)

this provision, because the law does not seek Memorandum - MEMO - No
condition for its PRESENTMENT.
Thus, NOT A CONTRACT LIKE

to enforce a loan but to punish dishonesty and

ANY OTHER CHECKS covered by
BP22.

People vs. Nitafan

abuse of confidence in the handling of money G.R. No. 75954. Oct. 22, 1992
or goods to the prejudice of another. Violation BP22 - includes ALL CHECKS DRAWN against BANKS.

of trust receipt agreement is estafa which is The MERE ACT of ISSUING a WORTHLESS

not an offense against property, but against

CHECK, whether as a deposit, as a guarantee,
or even as an evidence of a pre-existing sdebt,
is malum prohibitum.

public order. IT ERODES the STABILITY and COMMERCIAL VALUE of checks

as CURRENCY SUBSTITUTES and bring about HAVOC in
TRADE and in BANKING COMMUNITIES.
END