Scribd
Upload
170 views

Kenneth NGO Digest

Kenneth Ngo was charged with three violations of BP 22 for issuing checks that were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The trial court found Ngo guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment, fines, and paying damages. Ngo appealed. The appellate court upheld the conviction for two of the cases, deleting the imprisonment but imposing fines of 150,000 pesos each. It acquitted Ngo in the third case for lack of notice of dishonor. The Supreme Court affirmed, explaining that BP 22 punishes issuing checks that are later dishonored, regardless if for a pre-existing or new obligation. It also clarified that Ngo's civil liability was to the company, not the agent.

Uploaded by

Clint D. Lumberio
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
170 views

Kenneth NGO Digest

Kenneth Ngo was charged with three violations of BP 22 for issuing checks that were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The trial court found Ngo guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment, fines, and paying damages. Ngo appealed. The appellate court upheld the conviction for two of the cases, deleting the imprisonment but imposing fines of 150,000 pesos each. It acquitted Ngo in the third case for lack of notice of dishonor. The Supreme Court affirmed, explaining that BP 22 punishes issuing checks that are later dishonored, regardless if for a pre-existing or new obligation. It also clarified that Ngo's civil liability was to the company, not the agent.

Uploaded by

Clint D. Lumberio
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Kenneth NGO vs.

People

Facts: Three separate informations were filed, violating BP 22 against Mr. Kenneth Ngo, which are identical in contents except as to their respective dates of issue and check numbers. Mr. Ngo incurred debt to Northern Hill Development Company, thereafter he issued 8 checks, 5 of them were honored the rest was dishonored because of insufficiency of funds by the maker on his acct. The payment was or the check was issued to Mr. Paul Gotianse as agent of the said company. The trial court rendered judgment that Mr. Ngo is guilty thereof, to be imprisoned for eight (8) months, to indemnify Paul Gotianse in behalf of Northern Hill Development Seventy-Five Thousand (P75,000.00) Pesos with legal interest to be computed from March 14, 1989 until fully paid, to pay a fine of Two Thousand (P2,000.00) Pesos and to pay Eighteen Thousand (P18,000.00) Pesos as attorneys fees. Same as with Crim. Case No. 18,201 and Crim. Case No. 18,202. Mr. Ngo Appealed the case and the CA ruled that all the elements of a violation of BP 22 with regard to Criminal Case Nos. 18200 and 18201 had been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Pursuant to SC Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, the penalty of imprisonment imposed by the lower court was deleted. For each criminal case, the appellate court imposed a fine of P150,000, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Finding that no written notice of dishonor or demand letter had been sent to petitioner regarding EBC Check No. 22976158, the CA acquitted him in Criminal Case No. 18202.

Issue: Whether or not Mr. Ngo is guilt of the 3 separate information filed against him for violating BP 22 Held: The Court that It should be noted that BP Blg. 22 punishes the making or drawing and issuing of any check that is subsequently dishonored, even in payment of pre-existing obligation, as indicated in Section 1 thereof by the phrase to apply on account. Section 1 also punishes the making or drawing and issuing of a check that is subsequently dishonored, in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of the issuance of the check, as indicated by the words for value. Also it was explained that the civil liability should be for Northern Hill Development Company because Paul Gotianse is acting on behalf or as an agent of the said company, therefore the debt incurred by the petitioner is to the company not to the agent itself.

You might also like