Opposition: (Re: Accused's Motion For Reconsideration Dated November 27, 2019)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
THIRD JUDICIAL REGION

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 2
GUAGUA, PAMPANGA
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
CRIM. CASE NOS. 15-21248;

15-21249 & 15-21250
-versus- CRIM. CASE NOS. 16-21279;
16-21280; 16-21281 & 16-21282
SPS. DR. RAMIL ANTHONY REYES &

MADELYN G. REYES,
Accused.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
OPPOSITION
(Re: Accused’s Motion for Reconsideration
dated November 27, 2019)
The prosecution, unto the Honorable Court, by way of opposition

to accused’s Motion for Reconsideration dated November 27, 2019,
respectfully states that:
1. The accused contended in effect that these instant cases

should have been dismissed because he was able to settle his monetary
obligation in the previous criminal cases. This is untenable.
2. It is true that the checks subject of these instant cases were

the result of a compromise agreement entered into between the parties
in the previous criminal cases. However, it is also true that the subject
checks were dishonored and the same were not made good by the
accused despite personal notice to him of such dishonor and despite the
time given to him. Indeed, he already violated B.P. Blg. 22 when he made
payment.
3. On this point, it is settled that “the gravamen of the offense
is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or any check that is
dishonored upon its presentment for payment and putting them in
circulation. The law includes all checks drawn against banks. The law
was designed to prohibit and altogether eliminate the deleterious and
pernicious practice of issuing checks with insufficient or no credit or
funds therefor. Such practice is deemed a public nuisance, a crime
against public order to be abated. The mere act of issuing a worthless
check, either as a deposit, as a guarantee, or even as an evidence of a
pre-existing debt or as a mode of payment is covered by B.P. 22. It is a
crime classified as malum prohibitum. The law is broad enough to
include, within its coverage, the making and issuing of a check by one
who has no account with a bank, or where such account was already
closed when the check was presented for payment. As the Court in
Lozano explained:
The effects of the issuance of a worthless check

transcends the private interests of the parties directly
involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the
community at large. The mischief it creates is not only a
wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury to the
public. The harmful practice of putting valueless
commercial papers in circulation, multiplied a thousandfold,
can very well pollute the channels of trade and commerce,
injure the banking system and eventually hurt the welfare
of society and the public interest.” (Resterio v. People, G.R.
No. 177438, September 24, 2012).
4. The accused also contended that he acted in good faith.

Again, this is untenable.
5. As stated above, the crime of violation of B.P. 22 is classified

as malum prohibitum and, in this regard, “It is a general principle in law
that in malum prohibitum case, good faith or motive is not a defense
because the law punishes the prohibited act itself.” (Saguin and Grado v.
People, G.R. No. 210603, November 25, 2015).
6. Indeed, “The law has long divided crimes into acts wrong in
themselves called acts mala in se; and acts which would not be wrong
but for the fact that positive law forbids them, called acts mala prohibita.
This distinction is important with reference to the intent with which a
wrongful act is done. The rule on the subject is that in acts mala in se,
the intent governs; but in acts mala prohibita, the only inquiry is, has the
law been violated? When an act is illegal, the intent of the offender is
immaterial. (Tan, et al. v. Balena, et al., G.R. No. 168111, July 4, 2008).
7. By and all, the accused does not have plausible grounds to
have this Honorable Court reconsider its Joint Decision dated November
4, 2019. On the contrary, the Joint Decision is well supported by the
facts and the evidence on record that clearly show the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is also undoubtedly a
repeater in issuing worthless checks; hence, the imposition of the
penalty of imprisonment against him is just proper.
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the prosecution respectfully prays that the

accused’s Motion for Reconsideration dated November 27, 2019 be
denied for utter lack of merit.
Other reliefs that are just and equitable under the premises are
likewise prayed for.
City of San Fernando for Guagua, Pampanga, December 20, 2019.
A.C. BENOZA LAW OFFICE

Private Prosecutor
Extension Office, Ground Floor,
Data College Building, Capitol Blvd.,
Sto. Niñ o, 2000 City of San Fernando,
Pampanga, Philippines
Tel. No. (045) 435-3726
acbenozalaw@gmail.com
By:
ARAMIS C. BENOZA
Roll No. 41851
PTR No. 2202986, 1/3/2019, OPT Pampanga
IBP No. 061506, 12/14/2018, MD 2019 Pampanga
MCLE No. VI-0009865, 7/3/2018,
Pasig City, Valid Until April 14, 2022
CONFORME:
MAYDA E. LINTAG-URSUA
Associate Provincial Prosecutor
Copy furnished:
ATTY. OLYMPIO DATU

Capitol Compound,
City of San Fernando, Pampanga
EXPLANATION
The foregoing OPPOSITION was filed with the Honorable Court

and a copy thereof was served upon Atty. Datu by registered mail in
view of the distance involved, time constraint and for lack of personnel
to effect personal filing and service.
ARAMIS C. BENOZA

Opposition: (Re: Accused's Motion For Reconsideration Dated November 27, 2019)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Opposition: (Re: Accused's Motion For Reconsideration Dated November 27, 2019)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Opposition: (Re: Accused's Motion For Reconsideration Dated November 27, 2019)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

THIRD JUDICIAL REGION

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

CRIM. CASE NOS. 15-21248;

SPS. DR. RAMIL ANTHONY REYES &

The prosecution, unto the Honorable Court, by way of opposition

1. The accused contended in effect that these instant cases

2. It is true that the checks subject of these instant cases were

The effects of the issuance of a worthless check

4. The accused also contended that he acted in good faith.

5. As stated above, the crime of violation of B.P. 22 is classified

WHEREFORE, the prosecution respectfully prays that the

City of San Fernando for Guagua, Pampanga, December 20, 2019.

A.C. BENOZA LAW OFFICE

ATTY. OLYMPIO DATU

The foregoing OPPOSITION was filed with the Honorable Court

You might also like