G.R. No.

L-63419 December 18, 1986

LOZANO v. HON. MARTINEZ
YAP, J.:
FACTS: Several cases were consolidated involving violations of the Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22). The
constitutionality of BP 22 was questioned before the sala of Judge Nitafan of the RTC of Manila.
It was argued that the law was violative of the constitutional provision on non-imprisonment
due to debt and that it impairs freedom of contract.
ISSUE: Whether or not BP 22 is constitutional.
HELD: BP 22 is constitutional. The law on estafa was not sufficient; in estafa, it only punishes the
fraudulent issuance of worthless checks to cover prior or simultaneous obligations but not pre-
existing obligations. BP 22 is aimed at curbing the practice of issuing checks that are worthless
for reasons of public interest.
BP 22 is not violative of the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt. The debt
within the meaning of the prohibition is that which arise from contracts. However, non-payment
of debts from crimes is punishable. This is why the crime of issuing bouncing checks as defined
in BP 22 was enacted. It is a valid exercise of police power.
Checks are widely used due to the convenience it brings in commercial transactions and
confidence is the primary basis why merchants rely on it for their various commercial
undertakings. Any practice therefore tending to destroy that confidence should be deterred for
the proliferation of worthless checks can only create havoc in trade circles and the banking
community.
The non-payment of a debt is not the gravamen of the violations of BP 22. The gravamen of the
offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is
dishonored upon its presentation for payment. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which
the law punishes. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The
thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks
and putting them in circulation. Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the
practice is proscribed by the law. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property,
but an offense against public order.
The Court En Banc decided. No dissent was made.