CIRCULAR NO. 12-2000
Section 1 of B.P.
(An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance
a Check Without Sufficient Funds for Credit and for Other Purposes)
imposes the penalty of imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) days
not more than one (1) year or a fine of not less than but not more than
double the amount of the check, which fine shall in no case exceed
or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
in Eduardo Vaca, v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 131714, 16 November
298 SCRA 656, 664) the Supreme Court (Second Division) per Mr. Justice
V. Mendoza, modified the sentence imposed for violation of B.P.
Blg. 22 by deleting the penalty of imprisonment and imposing only
penalty of fine in an amount double the amount of the check. In
thereof, the Court said:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
are first-time offenders. They are Filipino entrepreneurs who
contribute to the national economy. Apparently, they brought this
believing in all good faith, although mistakenly that they had not
a violation of B.P.
Blg. 22. Otherwise, they could simply have accepted the judgment of
the trial court and applied for probation to evade a prison term. It
best serve the ends of criminal justice if in fixing the penalty within
the range of discretion allowed by Section 1, par. 1, the same
underlying the Indeterminate Sentence Law is observed, namely, that of
redeeming valuable human material and preventing unnecessary
of personal liberty and economic usefulness with due regard to the
of the social order. In this case, we believe that a fine in an amount
equal to double the amount of the check involved is an appropriate
to impose on each of the petitioners
the recent case of Rosa Lim v. People of the Philippines (G. R. No.
18 September 2000), the Supreme Court en banc, applying Vaca
also deleted the penalty of imprisonment and sentenced the
the bounced check to the maximum of the fine allowed by B.P.
Blg. 22, i.e., P200,000, and concluded that “such would best
serve the ends of criminal justice.”
courts and judges concerned should henceforth take note of the
policy of the Supreme Court on the matter of the imposition of
for violations of B.P.
shall cause the immediate dissemination of this Administrative Circular
to all courts and judges concerned.
Administrative Circular, referred to and approved by the Supreme Court
en banc, shall take effect upon its issuance.
this 21st day of November 2000.
G. DAVIDE, JR.