ESTRELLA C.CONOL, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
BORJA, J.,:
Movants assail this Court’s decision on the ground that petitioner had been threatened by private complainant to issue the check, hence in effect “petitioner had only been rendered a mechanical tool which was being directed at will by its operator”.[3]
The Court reiterates its previous ruling, that-
xxx [T]he act of making or issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon presentment for payment constitutes a violation of B.P. 22. The statute effectively declares the offense to be one of malum prohibitum. The only query, then is whether the law has been breached.[4]
The grounds or reason for the issuance of the check is irrelevant in determining culpability. The terms and conditions surrounding the issuance of the checks are also irrelevant.[5]
ACCORDINGLY, the instant motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Badelles and Contreras, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 140-143.
[2] Rollo, pp. 126-135.
[3] Rollo, pp. 140-142.
[4] Rollo, pp. 140-142.
[5] Emma Nuguid v. Clarita Nicdao, G.R. No. 150785, September 15, 2006.