Lozano vs. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323 (1986)

Lozano vs. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323 (1986)

Facts: Defendants were prosecuted under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (Bouncing Check Law). They contended that statute is unconstitutional being contrary Constitutional provision forbidding imprisonment for debt.  BP 22 punishes a person “who makes or draws and issues any check on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of said check in full upon presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.” RTC denied their motions apart from one declaring it unconstitutional hence the petition for relief.

Issue: Whether or not Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (Bouncing Check Law) is unconstitutional?

Decision: BP 22 constitutional. The law is intended not to coerce the debtor to pay his det. The offense being punished is the act of making and issuing a worthless check that is dishonored upon presentation. Putting them into circulation hurts public interest. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property but against public order.

It is sufficient to have reasonable connection between means and end. The facts leading to the adoption of BP 22 is cloaked with public concern. Flooding the system with worthless checks will pollute the channels of trade and commerce, injure the banking system and eventually hurt the welfare of society and public interest.