This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2008-11-11 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| Since 1998, [21] this Court has held 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 be 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.[22] This policy was embodied in Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12-2000,[23]> authorizing the non-imposition of the penalty of imprisonment in B.P. 22 cases. We also clarified in Administrative Circular No. 13-2001, as explained in Tan v. Mendez,[24] that we are not decriminalizing B.P. 22 violations, nor have we removed imprisonment as an alternative penalty. Needless to say, the determination of whether the circumstances warrant the imposition of a fine alone rests solely upon the judge. Should the judge decide that imprisonment is the more appropriate penalty, Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 ought not to be deemed a hindrance. | |||||
|
2006-07-17 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| 3. subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or dishonor of the check for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.[8] | |||||
|
2006-06-30 |
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] | |||||
|
2004-09-27 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In sentencing Ty to pay a fine instead of a prison term, the appellate court applied the case of Vaca v. Court of Appeals[18] wherein this Court declared that in determining the penalty imposed for violation of B.P. 22, the philosophy underlying the Indeterminate Sentence Law should be observed, i.e., redeeming valuable human material and preventing unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness, with due regard to the protection of the social order.[19] | |||||
|
2004-08-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The law provides that an illegal ouster of a tenant-farmer may be penalized by imprisonment or a fine or both. Under the facts of this case, we find the penalty of imprisonment too harsh. Petitioner and Galvizo do not have any record of prior conviction, we are convinced that in lieu of imprisonment, a fine in the amount of P7,000 is appropriate following our pronouncement in Vaca v. Court of Appeals,[32] to wit:It would best serve the ends of criminal justice if in fixing the penalty within the range of discretion allowed by ยง1, 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.... | |||||
|
2003-08-07 |
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. | |||||
|
2002-08-15 |
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 | |||||
|
2002-06-06 |
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. | |||||
|
2000-06-30 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| In fine, it is evident from the records that there were violations of B.P. Blg. 22 committed by petitioner: (a) all the checks were complete on their faces, i.e., properly dated, signed, with the name of the payee and amount of the checks entered; (b) the checks were issued on account of loans petitioner made; (c) all the checks were dishonored and stamped "drawn against insufficient funds;" and, (d) BPI Bookkeeper Arnulfo Fernandez presented in court a ledger where Account Nos. 001-1151-95 and 0011-1318-08 of petitioner were shown to have insufficient funds at the date of the issuance of the checks.[36] Added to these is the presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds. A maker's knowledge is presumed from the dishonor of his check for insufficiency of funds.[37] Once proved that the maker or drawer had knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds or credit, which is also an important element for the offense to exist, he is rendered ipso facto liable. | |||||