Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
- kay ang fraud baya pwede baya ma independent civil action diba.
- case cited talks about reservation and its non-necessity.
- wala man siay nag file ug bp 22 diba?
- diba iya manang discretion if bp22 or civil case iya ifile? in this ccase she
chose to file
civil ( damages, attorneys fees)
- it is not a separate civil action because there is no other action in the first
place
- the case here talks about a separate independent civil action -- nga makaproceed
even if naay pending criminal action for bp 22.
- ani na case ni lim kay wala man - IT IS THE ONLY ACTION
- kay kung estafa ni - pwede baya ang ICC. fraud.
-
The CAs reliance on DMPI Employees Credit Association v. Velez[25] to give due
course to the civil action of Chan independently and separately of Criminal Case
No. 275381 was unwarranted. DMPI Employees, which involved a prosecution for
estafa, is not on all fours with this case, which is a prosecution for a violation
of BP 22. Although the Court has ruled that the issuance of a bouncing check may
result in two separate and distinct crimes of estafa and violation of BP 22,[26]
the procedures for the recovery of the civil liabilities arising from these two
distinct crimes are different and non-interchangeable. In prosecutions of estafa,
the offended party may opt to reserve his right to file a separate civil action, or
may institute an independent action based on fraud pursuant to Article 33 of the
Civil Code,[27] as DMPI Employees has allowed. In prosecutions of violations of BP
22, however, the Court has adopted a policy to prohibit the reservation or
institution of a separate civil action to claim the civil l
so naa bay proof sa checks na ni bounce? naa bay proof sa purchases using the
credit cars? and
iability arising from the issuance of the bouncing check upon the reasons
delineated in Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corporation, supra