[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
36 views1 page

PP v. Nitafan - Case

This case summary discusses Serafin vs. Lindayag, an administrative matter from 1975. The plaintiff failed to repay a simple loan of 1,500 pesos to an old friend, and the friend filed an estafa case against her, which is improper for a civil debt. The judge did not dismiss the improper criminal case and instead issued a warrant for the plaintiff's arrest. The Supreme Court held that the judge violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights by allowing a criminal complaint for a matter that was clearly a civil loan. Imprisoning someone for non-payment of a debt is unconstitutional. The judge showed gross ignorance of the law.

Uploaded by

Robehgene Atud-Javinar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
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
36 views1 page

PP v. Nitafan - Case

This case summary discusses Serafin vs. Lindayag, an administrative matter from 1975. The plaintiff failed to repay a simple loan of 1,500 pesos to an old friend, and the friend filed an estafa case against her, which is improper for a civil debt. The judge did not dismiss the improper criminal case and instead issued a warrant for the plaintiff's arrest. The Supreme Court held that the judge violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights by allowing a criminal complaint for a matter that was clearly a civil loan. Imprisoning someone for non-payment of a debt is unconstitutional. The judge showed gross ignorance of the law.

Uploaded by

Robehgene Atud-Javinar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
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

SERAFIN VS. LINDAYAG [67 SCRA 166; ADM. MATTER. NO.

297-MJ; 30 SEPT 1975]


Monday, February 09, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law

Facts: Plaintiff failed to pay a simple indebtedness for P1500


CarmelitoMendoza, then municipal secretary and his wife Corazon Mendoza and
therefore an estafa case was filed against her. Complainant admitted complaint.
Now complainant filed a case against respondent Judge for not dismissing the
case and issuing a warrant of arrest as it falls on the category of a simple
indebtedness, since elements of estafa are not present. Further she contended
that no person should be imprisoned for non-payment of a loan of a sum of
money. Two months after respondent dismissed plaintiff’s case. (Judge here
committed gross ignorance of law. Even if complainant desisted case was
pursued.)

Issue: Whether or Not there was a violation committed by the judge when it
ordered the imprisonment of plaintiff for non-payment of debt?

Held: Yes. Since plaintiff did not commit any offense as, his debt is
considered a simple loan granted by her friends to her. There is no collateralor
security because complainant was an old friend of the spouses who lentthe
money and that when they wrote her a letter of demand she promised to pay
them and said that if she failed to keep her promise, they could get her valuable
things at her home. Under the Constitution she is protected. Judge therefore in
admitting such a "criminal complaint" that was plainly civil in aspects from the
very face of the complaint and the "evidence" presented, and issuing on the
same day the warrant of arrest upon his utterly baseless finding "that the
accused is probably guilty of the crime charged," respondent grossly failed to
perform his duties properly.

You might also like