Sponsored by: The ChanRobles Group
This web page features the full text of
ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 12-2000.
.
|
|
|
ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 12-2000 RE:
PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF B.
P. BLG. 22
Section 1 of B.P.
Blg. 22 (An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance
of
a Check Without Sufficient Funds for Credit and for Other Purposes)
imposes the penalty of imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) days
but
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
P200,000,
or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
In its decision in Eduardo Vaca, v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 131714, 16 November 1998; 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 the penalty of fine in an amount double the amount of the check. In justification thereof, the Court said: Petitioners
are first-time offenders. They are Filipino entrepreneurs who
presumably
contribute to the national economy. Apparently, they brought this
appeal,
believing in all good faith, although mistakenly that they had not
committed
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
would
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
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. In this case, we believe that a fine in an amount
equal to double the amount of the check involved is an appropriate
penalty
to impose on each of the petitioners
In
the recent case of Rosa Lim v. People of the Philippines (G. R. No.
130038,
18 September 2000), the Supreme Court en banc, applying Vaca
also deleted the penalty of imprisonment and sentenced the
drawer of
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.”
All
courts and judges concerned should henceforth take note of the
foregoing
policy of the Supreme Court on the matter of the imposition of
penalties
for violations of B.P.
Blg. 22.
The Court Administrator shall cause the immediate dissemination of this Administrative Circular to all courts and judges concerned. This
Administrative Circular, referred to and approved by the Supreme Court
en banc, shall take effect upon its issuance.
Issued
this 21st day of November 2000.
Chief Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Harvard
Computer Systems, Inc. |
|
|
|
