Scribd Logo
Unggah

Selamat datang di Scribd!

  • Lozano Vs Martinez Digest

    Diunggah oleh

    Danny Castillo
    160 tayangan1 halaman
    The consolidated cases involve crimes committed under B.P. 22, also known as the bouncing check law. The accused argued that B.P. 22 violates the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt and is therefore unconstitutional. However, B.P. 22 does not transgress this constitutional inhibition because the law punishes the act of issuing worthless checks, not the non-payment of debt. The purpose of the law is to prohibit issuing worthless checks and putting them in circulation, not to coerce debt repayment.

    Deskripsi Asli:

    lozano vs marquez

    Judul Asli

    Lozano vs Martinez Digest

    Hak Cipta

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Format Tersedia

    DOCX, PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd

    Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

    Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

    Laporkan Dokumen Ini
    The consolidated cases involve crimes committed under B.P. 22, also known as the bouncing check law. The accused argued that B.P. 22 violates the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt and is therefore unconstitutional. However, B.P. 22 does not transgress this constitutional inhibition because the law punishes the act of issuing worthless checks, not the non-payment of debt. The purpose of the law is to prohibit issuing worthless checks and putting them in circulation, not to coerce debt repayment.

    Hak Cipta:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Unduh sebagai DOCX, PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    160 tayangan1 halaman

    Lozano Vs Martinez Digest

    Diunggah oleh

    Danny Castillo
    The consolidated cases involve crimes committed under B.P. 22, also known as the bouncing check law. The accused argued that B.P. 22 violates the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt and is therefore unconstitutional. However, B.P. 22 does not transgress this constitutional inhibition because the law punishes the act of issuing worthless checks, not the non-payment of debt. The purpose of the law is to prohibit issuing worthless checks and putting them in circulation, not to coerce debt repayment.

    Hak Cipta:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Unduh sebagai DOCX, PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    dari 1

    The present case involves consolidated cases for crime committed for violation of

    B.P.22 or known as the bouncing check law. The accused of these cases asserted
    that B.P. 22 isa violation of constitutional inhibition that no person shall be
    imprisoned for non-payment of debts, and therefore, unconstitutional.
    Won bP 22 transgressed the constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for debt
    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 isnot
    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 checksand putting
    them in circulation

    Anda mungkin juga menyukai