I'm Giancarlo Enrico S. Pozon, a Wushu instructor, investor and Barrister... That's right, Barrister; I graduated from law school and took the Bar Exams, now I'm waiting for the results. I created this blog to make Philippine Law easy to understand for the average person. It's all about free legal advice. There are many law blogs. But the problem is that many of them are written for lawyers and law students. They use words that can't be understood by ordinary people.
Many lawyers, judges and law students consider themselves as superior to most human beings because of their knowledge of the law. It bothers me since the law is supposed to serve society. Since the law is meant to serve society as a whole, it is important that is must be understood by everybody.
This does not mean that we should all become lawyers. It means that although law is a highly specialized profession, the first duty of everybody in this profession is to make the law understandable to all; that's why all these articles are free legal advice.
Like I said, this blog is about law -but it's for the ordinary people, not the lawyers. It's for the ordinary folk so they will know what is good and bad for them, and that making them aware of the law will help us all improve society as a whole. This is free legal advice for everybody!
BP
22 is
in the nature of a continuing crime. The gravamen is the actual
issuing of the check; it doesn't matter whether or not the intent of
the perpetrator was fraudulent. The indeterminate
sentence law can
also apply to BP 22. Those who question the constitutionality of BP
22 on the ground that no person shall be imprisoned for failure to
pay his debts have to remember that a violation of BP 22 is not
a crime against property but against public interest since checks,
as a medium of commerce, are vital to the banking industry.
Another
thing to consider is Administrative Circular 13-2001. This circular
clarifies the penalty to be imposed in BP 22 cases. In case a BP 22
case is proven in court, the court must not impose imprisonment
first. The court is to consider the least severe penalty; the purpose
is to redeem the issuer's economic value (read: to protect honest
issuers who weren't able to make good on their checks.)
With
regard to the circular, therefore, there are 3 penalties to consider:
1.)
The prison term in BP 22
2.)
Fine
3.)
Subsidiary imprisonment in case of inability to pay the fine
An order to stop payment for insufficiency of funds is not a defense, but lack of knowledge of the transaction and issuance can be (if there is a lack of delivery.)
A notice of dishonor must be written and personally served to the issuer or it won't be effective. Also, if a check bounces only the issuer is liable and not other indorsers.
The prescriptive period of BP 22 is 4 years from the date of receipt of the notice of dishonor.
An order to stop payment for insufficiency of funds is not a defense, but lack of knowledge of the transaction and issuance can be (if there is a lack of delivery.)
A notice of dishonor must be written and personally served to the issuer or it won't be effective. Also, if a check bounces only the issuer is liable and not other indorsers.
The prescriptive period of BP 22 is 4 years from the date of receipt of the notice of dishonor.
0 comments:
Post a Comment