Sunday, June 24, 2012

Magno vs. CA (Crim1)

Oriel Magno, petitioner, vs. Honorable Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, respondents.

June 26, 1992

Paras, J:

Facts:
  • Oriel Magno, lacking fund in acquiring complete set of equipment to make his car repair shop operational, approached Corazon Teng, Vice President of Mancor Industries.
  • VP Teng referred Magno to LS Finance and Management Corporation, advising its Vice President, Joey Gomez, that Mancor was willing to supply the pieces of equipment needed if LS Finance could accommodate Magno and and provide him credit facilities.
  • The arrangement went on requiring Magno to pay 30% of the total amount of the equipment as warranty deposit but Magno couldn't afford to pay so he requested VP Gomez to look for third party who could lend him that amount.
  • Without Magno's knowledge, Corazon was the one who provided that amount.
  • As payment to the equipment, Magno issued six checks, two of them were cleared and the rest had no sufficient fund.
  • Because of the unsuccessful venture, Magno failed to pay LS Finance which then pulled out the equipment.
  • Magno was charged of violation of BP Blg. 2 (The Bouncing Checks Law) and found guilty.
Issue:
  • Whether or not Magno should be punished for the issuance of the checks in question.
Held:
  • No
Ratio: 
  • To charge Magno for the refund of a warranty deposit which he did not withdraw as it was not his own account, it having remained with LS Finance, is to even make him pay an unjust debt since he did not receive the amount in question. All the while, said amount was in the safekeeping of the financing company which is managed by the officials and employees of LS Finance.

2 comments:

  1. Why was it that Magno was not punished? still he issued checks which does not have enough funds.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pls read the whole text, then you'll understand why he should not be punished.

    ReplyDelete