Bp 22 Compromise Agreement

Petpet purchased jewelry from Solid Gold International Traders, Inc., a jewelry company. Because of the non-payment of the purchase price, Solid Gold filed a civil suit against it [2] for practical benefit in the Pasig Regional Court. On September 17, 1990, the petitioner and Solid Gold, through their General Manager Joaquin Novales III, reached a compromise agreement for the settlement of these civil proceedings. [3] The compromise agreement, as approved by the Tribunal, It provided that the petitioner would issue a total of 99 cheques of 19 million P50,000.00 each, each dating from the 15 and 30 of the month as of October 1, 1990, and the balance of more than 1 million P. on November 16, 1994, which is also the deadline of the 99 and last exams. to be paid in a lump sum. The Petentin issued ten cheques to the P50,000.00 for a total of P500,000.00, which were drawn against his account at the Equitable Banking Corporation (EBC), Grace Park, Caloocan City Branch. Novales then deposited each of the ten cheques to the Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) on their respective due date. However, these cheques were disgraced by EBC for the reason “closed account.” For every cheque given to Novales, dishonor briefs were issued. [4] When Romy was sued in the Municipal Test Court (MTCC) for breach of the Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22), during which he carried out poor checks totalling 330,000 P3000, he entered into a compromise agreement with the complainant, in which he promised to pay this sum in monthly tranches of P50,000. Under this agreement, the criminal proceedings were provisionally dismissed and the MTCC delivered its verdict. A criminal law within the meaning of the Court is an act of the legislature that prohibits certain acts and establishes penalties for its offences. It also defines crime, treats its nature and provides for its punishment.

[15] R.A. 7691 does not prohibit certain acts and does not provide for sanctions for its violation; nor does it address the nature of the crimes and their punishment. Therefore, R.A. No. 7691 is not a criminal statute, so section 22 CPP is not applicable in this case. The Virtual Legal Library of Chanrobles For liability according to B.P.B.B. 22, it is not enough for the Crown to find that controls have been issued and that they have subsequently been disgraced. The Crown must also prove that at the time the cheque was issued, the issuer knew that it did not have sufficient resources or credits in the payment bank at the time of its deposit.

[41] It is for these reasons that we return to the Judgment of the Court of Appeal upholding the conviction of the Court of Appeal for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. However, this does not affect his civil liability to the private complainant Solid Gold, equal to P500,000.00, plus 12% interest per year from the date of the final date of this judgment. [55] Q: You still think she didn`t give you enough money? Q: And the reason you agreed to the conditions for issuing the post-born cheques because you also know how long the accused woman Elvira Yu Oh didn`t have enough money or money in the bank to cover the amount of the cheques? On the basis of this section, the presumption that the issuer was aware of the inadequacy of the funds only comes into effect when it is proven that the issuer has received a disrea guess and has not paid the cheque amount or that it has reached an agreement on its payment within five days of receiving the cheque. [42] The presumption or apparent evidence in this section cannot occur if such non-payment by the draw bank is not passed on to the manufacturer or drawer or if there is no evidence of the date on which such notification was received by the drawer, since there would simply not be the possibility of calculating the decisive five-day period.

Comments are closed.