Ada v. Viola · G.R. 82346

Petitioner: Ada
Respondent: Viola
Citation: G.R. No. 82346
Court: Supreme Court
Division: Third Division
Ponente: Fernan, C.J.
Decided: April 17, 1989

Summary

Victoriano Ada challenged his prosecution for estafa after being charged for B.P. 22 violations involving the same bouncing checks, claiming double jeopardy. The Regional Trial Court denied his motion to dismiss, and he filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that no double jeopardy exists because B.P. 22 violations and estafa are distinct offenses with different essential elements. B.P. 22 is malum prohibitum requiring only knowledge of insufficient funds, while estafa is malum in se requiring proof of deceit and damage. Since each offense requires different evidence and involves elements not essential to the other, prosecution for both offenses arising from the same act does not violate the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy.

Related cases

Other Philippine cases on the same provisions and issues.

Lozano v. Martinez G.R. No. L-63419
King v. People G.R. No. 131540
Yu Oh v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 125297
Alferez v. People G.R. No. 182301
Domagsang v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 139292
Macalalag v. People G.R. No. 164358
Ongson v. People G.R. No. 156169
Medalla v. Laxa G.R. No. 193362
Nierras v. Dacuycuy G.R. No. 59568
People v. Chua G.R. No. 130632

Featured in research

In-depth Intellegal research that discusses this case.

Bouncing Checks Law in the Philippines (BP 22)

By the Intellegal Editorial Board · April 17, 1989

Search Philippine case law on Intellegal →

AI-assisted case analysis — for research only. Verify against the official decision. A research aid, not legal advice; using this page creates no attorney-client relationship. For legal advice, consult a Philippine lawyer. Verify every holding and citation against the official decision (Supreme Court E-Library / Official Gazette) before relying on it.