Arceta v. Mangrobang
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Two consolidated petitions under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court were filed. In G.R. No. 152895, petitioner Ofelia V. Arceta challenged the constitutionality of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22) and sought the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 1599-CR filed against her for violation of BP 22. The Information alleged that Arceta issued a check for ₱740,000.00 dated December 21, 1998, knowing she had insufficient funds, and it was dishonored for "DRAWN AGAINST INSUFFICIENT FUNDS." In G.R. No. 153151, petitioner Gloria S. Dy similarly challenged the constitutionality of BP 22 and sought the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 212183 filed against her. The Information alleged that Dy issued a check for ₱2,500,000.00 dated January 19, 2000, knowing she had insufficient funds, and it was dishonored for "ACCOUNT CLOSED." Procedural History: Neither petitioner moved to quash the indictments or dismiss the cases in the trial courts on the ground of unconstitutionality of BP 22, believing such a move would be futile given the prevailing jurisprudence in Lozano v. Martinez. Both petitioners were arraigned and pleaded "not guilty." The Petition: Both petitioners filed petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Supreme Court, assailing the constitutionality of BP 22 and seeking to cease and desist proceedings in their respective criminal cases and to dismiss the same.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitions meet the requisites for the exercise of the Supreme Court's power of judicial review. Whether Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 is constitutional. Whether the respondent judges acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
Ruling
The petitions are DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the requisites for judicial review: The Court held that the requisites for judicial review were not met. These include the existence of an actual and appropriate case and controversy, a personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional question, the exercise of judicial review pleaded at the earliest opportunity, and the constitutional question being the very lis mota of the case. The petitions were anchored on Rule 65, which requires an allegation of grave abuse of discretion, which was absent. Furthermore, the constitutional question was not raised at the earliest opportunity in the lower courts, as the petitioners failed to move to quash the indictments or dismiss the cases on that ground. The petitions were thus premature. On the constitutionality of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22: The Court reiterated that every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality. The petitioners failed to persuade the Court that BP 22, by itself or in its implementation, transgressed a provision of the Constitution. The Court noted that the issue of BP 22's constitutionality had already been passed upon in Lozano v. Martinez. The Court also found no merit in the argument that the economic crisis should be a basis to declare the law infirm, emphasizing that during trying times, faith in the financial system should be strengthened, and practices destroying confidence in checks should be deterred. On grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no allegation in the petitions that the respondent judges acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The petitions were filed under Rule 65, which specifically requires such an allegation for certiorari to prosper. The absence of any order, decision, or resolution from the respondent judges appended to the petitions further weakened the claim for certiorari.
Main Doctrine
Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus assailing the constitutionality of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 are dismissed for failure to meet the requisites for judicial review, specifically the absence of an actual case and controversy, the failure to raise the constitutional question at the earliest opportunity in the lower court, and the lack of allegation of grave abuse of discretion by the respondent judges.