Postdating a check is it legal Pinay sex trip chat
71654 December 18, 1986 ANTONIO DATUIN and SUSAN DATUIN, petitioners, vs. PANO, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch LXXXVIII, HONORABLE Cl TY FISCAL OF QUEZON CITY, respondents. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes. 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. 16 Section 13, Article IV, 1973 Constitution 17 For a survey of the constitutional provisions of various American States, see Tan Cong v. 75122-49 December 18, 1986 ELINOR ABAD, petitioner, vs. GEROCHI, JR., in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 139, Makati and FEDERICO L. To answer the question, it is necessary to examine what the statute prohibits and punishes as an offense. IV Has BP 22 transgressed the constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for debt? FLAMINIANO, in his capacity as City Fiscal of Manila, respondents. But precisely in the failure to perceive the vital distinction lies the error of those who challenge the validity of BP 22.
HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 154, now vacant but temporarily presided by HONORABLE ASAALI S. It was held that "one of the purposes of the law is to suppress possible abuses on the part of the employers who hire laborers or employees without paying them the salaries agreed upon for their services, thus causing them financial difficulties. The constitutional challenge to BP 22 posed by petitioners deserves a searching and thorough scrutiny and the most deliberate consideration by the Court, involving as it does the exercise of what has been described as "the highest and most delicate function which belongs to the judicial department of the government." 15 As we enter upon the task of passing on the validity of an act of a co-equal and coordinate branch of the government, we need not be reminded of the time-honored principle, deeply ingrained in our jurisprudence, that a statute is presumed to be valid. BP 22 addresses the problem directly and frontally and makes the act of issuing a worthless check malum prohibitum. Previous efforts to deal with the problem of bouncing checks within the ambit of the law on estafa did not evoke any constitutional challenge. Those who question the constitutionality of BP 22 insist that: (1) it offends the constitutional provision forbidding imprisonment for debt; (2) it impairs freedom of contract; (3) it contravenes the equal protection clause; (4) it unduly delegates legislative and executive powers; and (5) its enactment is flawed in that during its passage the Interim Batasan violated the constitutional provision prohibiting amendments to a bill on Third Reading. It opted to take a bold step and decided to enact a law dealing with the problem of bouncing or worthless checks, without attaching the law's umbilical cord to the existing penal provisions on estafa. With the foregoing factual and legal antecedents as a backdrop, the then Interim Batasan confronted the problem squarely.