G.R. No. 149276 , September 27, 2002
Jovencio Lim and Teresita Lim, Petitioners, vs. The People of the Philippines, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 217, the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, and Wilson Cham, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner spouses Jovencio and Teresita Lim issued two postdated checks to private respondent Wilson Cham in December 1991. One check was dishonored for insufficient funds, and the other was not presented upon the petitioners’ request and promise to replace the dishonored check. After petitioners failed to cover the amount, a complaint for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 818 (PD 818), was filed. The City Prosecutor found probable cause and filed an information with no bail recommended. The Regional Trial Court issued a warrant for their arrest with no bail. Petitioner Jovencio Lim was arrested and detained, while Teresita Lim remained at large. Petitioners filed motions to quash and for bail, which were denied. They then filed a petition for certiorari challenging the constitutionality of PD 818 for allegedly violating due process, the right to bail, and the constitutional prohibition against cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment. The Supreme Court later granted Jovencio Lim’s petition to post bail per a Department of Justice Circular, rendering the bail issue moot.

ISSUE

1. Whether PD 818 violates Section 19, Article III of the Constitution (prohibition against cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment).
2. Whether PD 818 violates Section 1, Article III of the Constitution (due process clause) due to alleged non-publication.

RULING

1. No, PD 818 does not violate the prohibition against cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment. The Court held that a penalty is not cruel or degrading unless it is flagrantly oppressive and wholly disproportionate to the offense, shocking the moral sense of the community. The severity of a penalty alone does not make it unconstitutional. PD 818’s increased penalties for estafa by bouncing checks were enacted to curb an upsurge in such crimes, which undermine confidence in negotiable instruments and retard trade and commerce. The law’s purpose is laudable, and petitioners failed to present clear and convincing proof to defeat the presumption of the decree’s constitutionality.
2. No, PD 818 does not violate due process. The Court found petitioners’ claim of non-publication incorrect, noting that PD 818 was published in the Official Gazette on December 1, 1975. Publication is an indispensable part of due process, and this requirement was satisfied.
The petition was dismissed, upholding the constitutionality of PD 818.