Lawyerly

GR No. 185906

2010-06-29

CARPIO MORALES, J.

By the challenged decision, the appellate court affirmed the appellant's conviction but found the imposition of the penalty of imprisonment (six months for each of the 84 checks) too harsh, citing SC Administrative Circular 12-2000[17] and Lim v. People.[18] It thus modified the RTC decision, disposing as follows:

GR No. 152666

2008-04-23

MARCIANO TAN v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds.- The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.[20] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) In order to create such presumption, it must be shown that the drawer or maker received a notice of dishonor and, within five banking days thereafter, failed to satisfy the amount of the check or arrange for its payment.[21] The above-quoted provision creates a presumption juris tantum that the second element prima facie exists when the first and third elements of the offense are present.[22]

GR NO. 144054

2006-06-30

NIEVES A. SAGUIGUIT v. PEOPLE

GARCIA, J.

However, in view of [SC] Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, as clarified by Administrative Circular No. 13-2001, establishing a rule of preference in the application of the penalties provided for in B.P. Blg. 22; and the recommendation of the Solicitor General in its Comment that the policy laid down in Vaca vs. Court of Appeals,[19] and Lim vs. People,[20] of redeeming valuable human material and preventing unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness, be considered in favor of petitioner who is not shown to be a habitual delinquent or a recidivist, we find that the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals should be modified by deleting the penalty of imprisonment and imposing only a fine of xxx.[21]

GR NO. 145498

2005-01-17

BENJAMIN LEE v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

However, in view of Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, as clarified by Administrative Circular No. 13-2001, establishing a rule of preference in the application of the penalties provided for in B.P. Blg. 22; and the recommendation of the Solicitor General in its Comment that the policy laid down in Vaca vs. Court of Appeals,[55] and Lim vs. People,[56] of redeeming valuable human material and preventing unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness, be considered in favor of petitioner who is not shown to be a habitual delinquent or a recidivist,[57] we find that the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals should be modified by deleting the penalty of imprisonment and imposing only a fine of P200,000.00.

GR No. 148557

2003-08-07

FELICITO ABARQUEZ v. CA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The Court has consistently declared that the cause or reason for the issuance of the check is inconsequential in determining criminal culpability under BP 22. The Court has since said that `a check issued as an evidence of debt, although not intended for encashment, has the same effect like any other check' and must thus be held to be `within the contemplation of BP 22.' Once a check is presented for payment, the drawee bank gives it the usual course whether issued in payment of an obligation or just as a guaranty of an obligation. BP 22 does not concern itself with what might actually be envisioned by the parties, its primordial intention being to instead ensure the stability and commercial value of checks as being virtual substitutes for currency. It is a policy that can easily be eroded if one has yet to determine the reason for which checks are issued, or the terms and conditions for their issuance, before an appropriate application of legislative enactment can be made. The gravamen of the offense under BP 22 is the act of making or issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon presentment for payment. The act effectively declares the offense to be one of malum prohibitum. The only valid query then is whether the law has been breached, i.e., by the mere act of issuing a bad check, without so much regard as to the criminal intent of the issuer. Therefore, in Criminal Cases Nos. D-8137, D-8176 and D-8177, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of B.P. 22. The trial court sentenced petitioner to suffer imprisonment of one (1) year for each count, but the Court of Appeals deleted the penalty of imprisonment. The appellate court based its decision on Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, where this Court, adopting the rulings in Vaca v. Court of Appeals[25] and Lim v. People,[26] authorized the non-imposition of the penalty of imprisonment in B.P. 22 cases subject to certain conditions. However, the Court of Appeals failed to explain the basis for the deletion of the prison sentence imposed by the trial court.

GR No. 133297

2002-08-15

MIRAFLOR M. SAN PEDRO v. PEOPLE

QUISUMBING, J.

served, as held in Vaca vs. Court of Appeals[15] and in Lim vs. People,[16] by requiring petitioner to pay a fine in the maximum amount of P200,000, instead of having her serve a prison term, which in this case could be an unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness. WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 31, 1998, in CA-G.R. No. 19922, finding petitioner MIRAFLOR M. SAN PEDRO guilty of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The penalty of imprisonment is deleted. In

GR No. 138669

2002-06-06

STEVE TAN v. FABIAN MENDEZ

QUISUMBING, J.

The rationale of Adm. Circular No. 12-2000 is found in our rulings in Eduardo Vaca vs. Court of Appeals[30] and Rosa Lim vs. People of the Philippines.[31] We held in those cases that it would best serve the ends of criminal justice if, in fixing the penalty to be imposed for violation of B.P. 22, the same philosophy underlying the Indeterminate Sentence Law is observed, i.e. that of redeeming valuable human material and preventing unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness with due regard to the protection of the social order.

GR No. 138669

2002-06-06

STEVE TAN v. FABIAN MENDEZ

QUISUMBING, J.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the Decision of Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 20030, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioners are ordered to indemnify respondent in the amount of P58,237.75 with legal interest from date of judicial demand. The sentence of imprisonment of six months is SET ASIDE and in lieu thereof, a FINE in the amount of P116,475.50[34] is imposed upon petitioners, with subsidiary imprisonment not to exceed six months in case of insolvency or non-payment.[35]

GR No. 146238

2001-12-07

MA. ELENA LAGMAN v. PEOPLE

KAPUNAN, J.

In view of the foregoing, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly found accused-petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of B.P. 22. However, in the recent cases of Eduardo Vaca v. Court of Appeals,[28] and Rosa Lim v. People of the Philippines[29] as well as Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 issued by the Court on November 21, 2000, the Court pronounced a policy on the matter of imposition of penalties for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law.

GR No. 148326

2001-11-15

PABLO C. VILLABER v. COMELEC

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

We cannot go along with petitioner's contention that this Court's ruling in Tuanda has been abandoned or modified in the recent case of Rosa Lim vs. People of the Philippines,[26] which reiterated the ruling in Vaca vs. Court of Appeals.[27] In these two latter cases, the penalty of imprisonment imposed on the accused for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 was deleted by this Court. Only a fine was imposed. Petitioner insists that with the deletion of the prison sentence, the offense no longer involves moral turpitude. We made no such pronouncement. This is what we said in Rosa Lim:"In Vaca v. Court of Appeals, we held that in determining the penalty to be imposed for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, the philosophy underlying the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies. The philosophy is to redeem valuable human material, and to prevent unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness with due regard to the protection of the social order. There we deleted the prison sentence imposed on petitioners. We imposed on them only a fine double the amount of the check issued. We considered the fact that petitioners brought the appeal, believing in good faith, that no violation of B.P. Blg. 22 was committed, 'otherwise, they would have simply accepted the judgment of the trial court and applied for probation to evade prison term.' We do the same here. We believe such would best serve the ends of criminal justice."

GR No. 143231

2001-10-26

ALBERTO LIM v. PEOPLE

DAVIDE, JR., C.J.

The conviction of ALBERTO must be sustained. The law enumerates the elements of B.P. Blg. 22 to be (1) the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.[8]

GR No. 144142

2001-08-23

YOLANDA AGUIRRE v. PEOPLE

KAPUNAN, J.

However, there is need to modify the penalty imposed on petitioner in view of the Court's rulings in Vaca vs. Court of Appeals[12] and Lim vs. People of the Philippines[13] that: [I]t would best serve the ends of criminal justice if in fixing the penalty within the range of discretion allowed by §1, par. 1, the same philosophy underlying the Indeterminate Sentence Law is observed, namely, that of redeeming valuable human material and preventing unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness with due regard to the protection of the social order.[14]

GR No. 117857

2001-02-02

LUIS S. WONG v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

The elements of B.P. Blg. 22 under the first situation, pertinent to the present case, are:[18]

GR No. 117857

2001-02-02

LUIS S. WONG v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Petitioner Luis S. Wong is found liable for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 but the penalty imposed on him is hereby MODIFIED so that the sentence of imprisonment is deleted. Petitioner is ORDERED to pay a FINE of (1) P6,750.00, equivalent to double the amount of the check involved in Criminal Case No. CBU-12057, (2) P12,820.00, equivalent to double the amount of the check involved in Criminal Case No. CBU-12058, and (3) P11,000.00, equivalent to double the amount of the check involved in Criminal Case No. CBU-12055, with subsidiary imprisonment[24] in case of insolvency to pay the aforesaid fines. Finally, as civil indemnity, petitioner is also ordered to pay to LPI the face value of said checks totaling P18,025.00 with legal interest thereon from the time of filing the criminal charges in court, as well as to pay the costs.

GR No. 139006

2000-11-27

REMIGIO S. ONG v. PEOPLE

KAPUNAN, J.

In light, however, of the rulings in the recent cases of Vaca v. Court of Appeals[12] and Rosa Lim v. People,[13] the Court deems it best in the instant case, to limit the penalty for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 to payment of a fine in the amount of P150,000.00. Following our rationale in the aforesaid cases, the Court believes that it would best serve the ends of criminal justice if in fixing the penalty within the range of discretion allowed by Sec. 1, par. 1, the same philosophy underlying the Indeterminate Sentence Law is observed, namely, that of redeeming valuable human material and preventing unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness with due regard to the protection of the social order.[14]

	GR No. 185906 2010-06-29	LOURDES AZARCON v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
By the challenged decision, the appellate court affirmed the appellant's conviction but found the imposition of the penalty of imprisonment (six months for each of the 84 checks) too harsh, citing SC Administrative Circular 12-2000[17] and Lim v. People.[18] It thus modified the RTC decision, disposing as follows:
	GR No. 152666 2008-04-23	MARCIANO TAN v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK CARPIO MORALES, J.
Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds.- The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.[20] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) In order to create such presumption, it must be shown that the drawer or maker received a notice of dishonor and, within five banking days thereafter, failed to satisfy the amount of the check or arrange for its payment.[21] The above-quoted provision creates a presumption juris tantum that the second element prima facie exists when the first and third elements of the offense are present.[22]
	GR NO. 144054 2006-06-30	NIEVES A. SAGUIGUIT v. PEOPLE GARCIA, J.
However, in view of [SC] Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, as clarified by Administrative Circular No. 13-2001, establishing a rule of preference in the application of the penalties provided for in B.P. Blg. 22; and the recommendation of the Solicitor General in its Comment that the policy laid down in Vaca vs. Court of Appeals,[19] and Lim vs. People,[20] of redeeming valuable human material and preventing unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness, be considered in favor of petitioner who is not shown to be a habitual delinquent or a recidivist, we find that the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals should be modified by deleting the penalty of imprisonment and imposing only a fine of xxx.[21]
	GR NO. 145498 2005-01-17	BENJAMIN LEE v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
However, in view of Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, as clarified by Administrative Circular No. 13-2001, establishing a rule of preference in the application of the penalties provided for in B.P. Blg. 22; and the recommendation of the Solicitor General in its Comment that the policy laid down in Vaca vs. Court of Appeals,[55] and Lim vs. People,[56] of redeeming valuable human material and preventing unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness, be considered in favor of petitioner who is not shown to be a habitual delinquent or a recidivist,[57] we find that the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals should be modified by deleting the penalty of imprisonment and imposing only a fine of P200,000.00.
	GR No. 148557 2003-08-07	FELICITO ABARQUEZ v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The Court has consistently declared that the cause or reason for the issuance of the check is inconsequential in determining criminal culpability under BP 22. The Court has since said that `a check issued as an evidence of debt, although not intended for encashment, has the same effect like any other check' and must thus be held to be `within the contemplation of BP 22.' Once a check is presented for payment, the drawee bank gives it the usual course whether issued in payment of an obligation or just as a guaranty of an obligation. BP 22 does not concern itself with what might actually be envisioned by the parties, its primordial intention being to instead ensure the stability and commercial value of checks as being virtual substitutes for currency. It is a policy that can easily be eroded if one has yet to determine the reason for which checks are issued, or the terms and conditions for their issuance, before an appropriate application of legislative enactment can be made. The gravamen of the offense under BP 22 is the act of making or issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon presentment for payment. The act effectively declares the offense to be one of malum prohibitum. The only valid query then is whether the law has been breached, i.e., by the mere act of issuing a bad check, without so much regard as to the criminal intent of the issuer. Therefore, in Criminal Cases Nos. D-8137, D-8176 and D-8177, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of B.P. 22. The trial court sentenced petitioner to suffer imprisonment of one (1) year for each count, but the Court of Appeals deleted the penalty of imprisonment. The appellate court based its decision on Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, where this Court, adopting the rulings in Vaca v. Court of Appeals[25] and Lim v. People,[26] authorized the non-imposition of the penalty of imprisonment in B.P. 22 cases subject to certain conditions. However, the Court of Appeals failed to explain the basis for the deletion of the prison sentence imposed by the trial court.
	GR No. 133297 2002-08-15	MIRAFLOR M. SAN PEDRO v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
served, as held in Vaca vs. Court of Appeals[15] and in Lim vs. People,[16] by requiring petitioner to pay a fine in the maximum amount of P200,000, instead of having her serve a prison term, which in this case could be an unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness. WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 31, 1998, in CA-G.R. No. 19922, finding petitioner MIRAFLOR M. SAN PEDRO guilty of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The penalty of imprisonment is deleted. In
	GR No. 138669 2002-06-06	STEVE TAN v. FABIAN MENDEZ QUISUMBING, J.
The rationale of Adm. Circular No. 12-2000 is found in our rulings in Eduardo Vaca vs. Court of Appeals[30] and Rosa Lim vs. People of the Philippines.[31] We held in those cases that it would best serve the ends of criminal justice if, in fixing the penalty to be imposed for violation of B.P. 22, the same philosophy underlying the Indeterminate Sentence Law is observed, i.e. that of redeeming valuable human material and preventing unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness with due regard to the protection of the social order.
	GR No. 138669 2002-06-06	STEVE TAN v. FABIAN MENDEZ QUISUMBING, J.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the Decision of Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 20030, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioners are ordered to indemnify respondent in the amount of P58,237.75 with legal interest from date of judicial demand. The sentence of imprisonment of six months is SET ASIDE and in lieu thereof, a FINE in the amount of P116,475.50[34] is imposed upon petitioners, with subsidiary imprisonment not to exceed six months in case of insolvency or non-payment.[35]
	GR No. 146238 2001-12-07	MA. ELENA LAGMAN v. PEOPLE KAPUNAN, J.
In view of the foregoing, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly found accused-petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of B.P. 22. However, in the recent cases of Eduardo Vaca v. Court of Appeals,[28] and Rosa Lim v. People of the Philippines[29] as well as Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 issued by the Court on November 21, 2000, the Court pronounced a policy on the matter of imposition of penalties for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law.
	GR No. 148326 2001-11-15	PABLO C. VILLABER v. COMELEC SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
We cannot go along with petitioner's contention that this Court's ruling in Tuanda has been abandoned or modified in the recent case of Rosa Lim vs. People of the Philippines,[26] which reiterated the ruling in Vaca vs. Court of Appeals.[27] In these two latter cases, the penalty of imprisonment imposed on the accused for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 was deleted by this Court. Only a fine was imposed. Petitioner insists that with the deletion of the prison sentence, the offense no longer involves moral turpitude. We made no such pronouncement. This is what we said in Rosa Lim:"In Vaca v. Court of Appeals, we held that in determining the penalty to be imposed for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, the philosophy underlying the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies. The philosophy is to redeem valuable human material, and to prevent unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness with due regard to the protection of the social order. There we deleted the prison sentence imposed on petitioners. We imposed on them only a fine double the amount of the check issued. We considered the fact that petitioners brought the appeal, believing in good faith, that no violation of B.P. Blg. 22 was committed, 'otherwise, they would have simply accepted the judgment of the trial court and applied for probation to evade prison term.' We do the same here. We believe such would best serve the ends of criminal justice."
	GR No. 143231 2001-10-26	ALBERTO LIM v. PEOPLE DAVIDE, JR., C.J.
The conviction of ALBERTO must be sustained. The law enumerates the elements of B.P. Blg. 22 to be (1) the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.[8]
	GR No. 144142 2001-08-23	YOLANDA AGUIRRE v. PEOPLE KAPUNAN, J.
However, there is need to modify the penalty imposed on petitioner in view of the Court's rulings in Vaca vs. Court of Appeals[12] and Lim vs. People of the Philippines[13] that: [I]t would best serve the ends of criminal justice if in fixing the penalty within the range of discretion allowed by §1, par. 1, the same philosophy underlying the Indeterminate Sentence Law is observed, namely, that of redeeming valuable human material and preventing unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness with due regard to the protection of the social order.[14]
	GR No. 117857 2001-02-02	LUIS S. WONG v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
The elements of B.P. Blg. 22 under the first situation, pertinent to the present case, are:[18]
	GR No. 117857 2001-02-02	LUIS S. WONG v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Petitioner Luis S. Wong is found liable for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 but the penalty imposed on him is hereby MODIFIED so that the sentence of imprisonment is deleted. Petitioner is ORDERED to pay a FINE of (1) P6,750.00, equivalent to double the amount of the check involved in Criminal Case No. CBU-12057, (2) P12,820.00, equivalent to double the amount of the check involved in Criminal Case No. CBU-12058, and (3) P11,000.00, equivalent to double the amount of the check involved in Criminal Case No. CBU-12055, with subsidiary imprisonment[24] in case of insolvency to pay the aforesaid fines. Finally, as civil indemnity, petitioner is also ordered to pay to LPI the face value of said checks totaling P18,025.00 with legal interest thereon from the time of filing the criminal charges in court, as well as to pay the costs.
	GR No. 139006 2000-11-27	REMIGIO S. ONG v. PEOPLE KAPUNAN, J.
In light, however, of the rulings in the recent cases of Vaca v. Court of Appeals[12] and Rosa Lim v. People,[13] the Court deems it best in the instant case, to limit the penalty for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 to payment of a fine in the amount of P150,000.00. Following our rationale in the aforesaid cases, the Court believes that it would best serve the ends of criminal justice if in fixing the penalty within the range of discretion allowed by Sec. 1, par. 1, the same philosophy underlying the Indeterminate Sentence Law is observed, namely, that of redeeming valuable human material and preventing unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness with due regard to the protection of the social order.[14]

ROSA LIM v. VS.