8/11/2019 arceta case

1/2

Petitioners: Ofelia V. Arceta/ Gloria S. Dy

Respondents: Judge Ma. Celestina Mangrobang (MeTC-Navotas)/ Judge Edwin B. Ramizo

(MeTC- Caloocan)

Petition: Special Civil Actions in the Supreme Court. Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus.

Facts:

City Prosecutor of Navotas charged Ofelia Arceta for violating BP22. In the Information, it was

alleged that on September 16, 1998, Arceta issued a check to OSCAR R. CASTRO. The check

was drawn against the Region Bank in the amount of P740, 000. It was dated December 21,

1998 and payable to Cash. The check was subsequently dishonoured because of insufficient

funds. Arceta failed to pay the amount or at least make arrangement for full payment within five

banking days from the receipt of notice. During the proceeding in the trial court, Arceta did not

move to dismiss the charge against her or that the Information be quashed on the ground that

BP22 was unconstitutional. Arceta pleaded not guilty when arraigned.

On the other hand, the City Prosecutor of Caloocan also filed a charge sheet against Gloria Dy

for violation of BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law). According to the charge, Dy issued a check to

ANITA CHUA during the month of January, 2000. The check was drawn against Prudential

Bank in the amount of P2, 500, 000. The check was subsequently dishonoured because the

account was already closed. Dy failed to pay the complainant despite the notice.

Issue:

Whether or not the Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22) is unconstitutional.

Held:

Dismissed for utter lack of merit.

Ratio:

The court may settle disputes on the constitutionality of a certain legislative act only if the

following requisites are present: 1. An actual or appropriate case and controversy exists; 2.

A personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional question; 3. The

exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity ; 4. The constitutional

question raised is the very l i s motaof the case.

Rule 65, Sec. 1 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure states that in a special civil action ofcertiorati the only question that may be raised is whether or not the respondent has acted

without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. A special civil action

for certiorari will only prosper if a grave abuse of discretion is manifested. Yet the petitioners did

not allege in their petitionthat respondent judges exercised grave abuse of discretion.

8/11/2019 arceta case

2/2

Petitions for a writ of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus do not qualify as the actual or

appropriate cases contemplated by the rules as the first requisite for the exercise of this

Courts power of Judicial Review. Petitioners do not have sufficient cause of action.

The petitioners ignored the hierarchy of courts when they raised the issue directly to the

Supreme Court. Seeking judicial review at the earliest opportunitydoes not mean to elevate

the matter immediately to the SC. It should have been raised in the proceedings in the trial

court. The petitioners should have moved to dismiss the case on the ground of

unconstitutionality of BP 22.

Every law has in its favour the presumption of constitutionality, and to justify nullification, there

must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution and not one that is doubtful,

speculative or argumentative.