Arceta v Mangrobang

G.R. No. 152859 | Quisumbing, J. | June 15, 2004

Lis Mota

DOCTRINE: Lis mota. It is a well-established rule that a court should not pass upon a constitutional
question and decide a law to be unconstitutional or invalid, unless such question is raised by the parties.
It is also needed to take note that every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality, and to
justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, and not one
that is doubtful, speculative or argumentative.

RELEVANT FACTS

Ofelia Arceta issued a check to Oscar Castro payable to cash for the amount of Php 740k even with full
knowledge that the account has no sufficient fund for the said amount. The check was subsequently
dishonoured by the bank. The City Prosecutor of Metro Manila charged Arceta of violating BP Blg 22
(Bouncing Checks Law).

Arceta made no move to dismiss the charges against her on the ground that B.P. Blg. 22 was
unconstitutional. They reasoned that the Lozano doctrine is still in place and such moves would violate
the doctrine. Both accused therefore filed a petition invoking the Court’s power of judicial review to
have the said law be considered void.

ISSUE
Whether or not BP Big 22 is the lis mota in this case. NO.

RATIO DECIDENDI
A special civil action for certiorari will prosper only if a grave abuse of discretion is manifested. Yet
nowhere in these petitions is there any allegation that the respondent judges acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Evidently, these petitions for a writ of certiorari ,
prohibition and mandamus do not qualify as the actual and appropriate cases contemplated by the rules
as the first requisite for the exercise of this Courts power of judicial review.

Records show that petitioners failed to initiate such moves in the proceedings below. Needless to
emphasize, this Court could not entertain questions on the invalidity of a statute where that issue was
not specifically raised, insisted upon, and adequately argued. Instead what they have raised was the
Lozano doctrine, it was not the Bouncing check law that was raised in the earliest opportunity during
the proceedings.

Petitioner has the burden of showing first that the case cannot be resolved unless the constitutional
question he raised is determined by the Court. Since petitioners failed to show that Bouncing Check law
have transgressed the law, it cannot be considered as a LIS MOTA of the case, another requisite for a
judicial review to prosper.
RULING
WHEREFORE, the instant petitions are DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.

NOTES
There were two petitions filed before the court, one is from Arceta and one is from Dy. Dy had a
similar situation in which he issued a check with having a full knowledge that the account has no
suffiecient fund for the said amount. He also made use of the Lozano case as a defense. (Just in case he
questions!)

KOMODA, A | 1