ROBERTO CRUZ versus COURT OF APPEALS, Et. Al.

G.R 108738 | 1994-06-17

Ponente: Hon. Santiago Kapunan

Doctrine/Topic:

Mala Prohibitum

In criminal law, crimes may come in two general forms: Mala in se and Mala prohibitum. The latter is
easily distinguished when the crime committed is against a special penal law. Unlike in Mala in se, Mala
prohibitum is not leaning on the intent or malice of the offense as both are inconsequential to the case.
So long as a crime is committed in violation of any special law, Mala prohibitum immediately stands.

Dispositive Portion:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DISMISSED and the questioned
decision of the respondent court is hereby AFFIRMED en toto. Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Facts:

The case presents an incidence of bouncing check issuance by the accused-petitioner, Roberto Cruz to
complainant-defendants, Andrea Mayor, both were business persons. The accused-petitioner borrowed
a sum of Php. 176,000.00 in March 1987 to the complainant-defendant in March 1987. The latter issued
a postdated check from Premier Bank and gave the same to the defendant to pay his debt through it.
When maturity came, the complainant-defendant went to Premiere Bank to get the payment for the
debt however, the latter informed that said check account is already closed. The complainant-defendant
in formed the accused-petitioner and the latter promised to pay the amount borrowed in May 1987. In
his failure to comply with the agreement to pay his debt, the complainant-defendant consulted a lawyer
and later filed a criminal rap against the accused-petitioner for violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. In the
trial court, the accused-petitioner denied the issuance of check in question, that signature thereon was
not his and that he knows the complainant-defendant. However, the accused-petitioner admitted he
opened the check account. Trial Court found him guilty and imposed upon the petitioner a year
imprisonment plus an indemnity of Php. 175,000 to be paid to the complainant-defendant. The accused-
petitioner appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused-petitioner can be convicted by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22

Held:

Yes. Issuing bouncing check is prohibited under BP Blg. 22. Regardless of whatever reason there may be,
issuing, making, and drawing of check is not allowed. The intent of BP Blg. 22 is to prevent checks in
becoming mere scraps and useless papers. Allowing bouncing checks to circulate will affect the trade,
commerce and the banking system of the country. The accused-petitioner’s claim that it was issued only
as a memorandum of indebtedness. It cannot be accepted because malice and intention are
inconsequential to mala prohibitum.