Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • De Villa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 87416, (April 8, 1991), 273 PHIL 89-97

    Uploaded by

    Danielle Therese Templado
    23 views1 page
    Cecilio De Villa was charged with violating the Bouncing Checks Law for issuing a $2,500 check that was later dishonored due to insufficient funds. He claimed the court had no jurisdiction because the check was payable in dollars. However, the court ruled that under the law, foreign checks drawn or issued in the Philippines are covered, even if payable elsewhere. It held that an offense was committed and courts should not create distinctions or exceptions where the law does not.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    De Villa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 87416, [April 8, 1991], 273 PHIL 89-97

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Cecilio De Villa was charged with violating the Bouncing Checks Law for issuing a $2,500 check that was later dishonored due to insufficient funds. He claimed the court had no jurisdiction because the check was payable in dollars. However, the court ruled that under the law, foreign checks drawn or issued in the Philippines are covered, even if payable elsewhere. It held that an offense was committed and courts should not create distinctions or exceptions where the law does not.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    23 views1 page

    De Villa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 87416, (April 8, 1991), 273 PHIL 89-97

    Uploaded by

    Danielle Therese Templado
    Cecilio De Villa was charged with violating the Bouncing Checks Law for issuing a $2,500 check that was later dishonored due to insufficient funds. He claimed the court had no jurisdiction because the check was payable in dollars. However, the court ruled that under the law, foreign checks drawn or issued in the Philippines are covered, even if payable elsewhere. It held that an offense was committed and courts should not create distinctions or exceptions where the law does not.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    CECILIO S.

    DE VILLA, petitioner,
    vs.
    THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE
    PHILIPPINES, HONORABLE JOB B. MADAYAG, and ROBERTO Z.
    LORAYES, respondents.
    San Jose, Enriquez, Lacas, Santos & Borje for petitioner.
    Eduardo R. Robles for private respondent.
    (G.R. No. 87416, [April 8, 1991], 273 PHIL 89-97)
    ||

    FACTS:

    Cecilio De Villa was charged with the violation of Batasang Pambansa Bilang 22 for issuing a
    Depositor’s Trust Check worth $2500 equivalent to P50,000. When the check was presented to
    the drawee bank within ninety (90) days of the date of issue, it was later dishonored for the
    reason "INSUFFICIENT FUNDS," and despite receiving notice of the dishonor, the accused
    failed to pay ROBERTO Z. LORAYEZ the amount of the check, which was P50,000.00, or to
    make arrangements for its payment.He moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that:

    a. Respondent Court had no jurisdiction over the matter;


    b. No offense was committed since said check was payable in dollars, so the obligation created
    is null and void pursuant to Republic Act No. 529.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the issuance of foreign checks are covered by the provisions of Batasang
    Pambansa Bilang 22.

    RULING:

    Offense was committed. Under the Bouncing Checks Law (Batasang Pambansa Blg. 22),
    foreign checks, provided they are either drawn or issued in the Philippines though payable
    outside thereof . . . are within the coverage of said law.

    It is a cardinal principle in statutory construction that where the law does not distinguish courts
    should not distinguish. Parenthetically, the rule is that where the law does not make any
    exception, courts may not, except something unless compelling reasons exist to justify it (Phil.
    British Assurance Co., Inc. vs. IAC, 150 SCRA 520 [1987]).

    You might also like