THE LAWYER'S POST.
"x x x.
“Anent the petitioner’s contention that novation had extinguished his criminal liability for violation of B.P. 22, we likewise find the same utterly specious. The petitioner ought to be reminded that novation is not a mode of extinguishing criminal liability. As astutely opined by the CA, novation may only prevent the rise of criminal liability if it occurs prior to the filing of the Information in court. In other words, novation does not extinguish criminal liability but may only prevent its rise.
The fact the petitioner had already made substantial payments to the respondent and that only P25,000.00 out of his total obligation in favor of the respondent remains unpaid is immaterial to the extinguishment of the petitioner’s criminal liability.
The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. 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 law.The law punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an offense against public order.”
x x x."
No comments:
Post a Comment