ADMINISTRATIVE
CIRCULAR NO. 13-2001
TO : ALL
JUDGES
SUBJECT : CLARIFICATION
OF ADMINISTRATIVE
CIRCULAR NO. 12-2000 ON THE PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF BATAS
PAMBANSA BLG. 22, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE BOUNCING CHECK LAW.
Clarification
has
been sought by concerned Judges and other parties regarding the
operation
of Administrative
Circular 12-2000 issued on 21 November 2000. In particular, queries
have been made regarding the authority of Judges to:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
1. Impose
the penalty
of imprisonment for violations of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22; and
2. Impose
subsidiary
imprisonment in the event that the accused who is found guilty of
violating
the provisions of B.P.
Blg. 22, is unable to pay the fine which he is sentenced to pay
considering
that Administrative
Circular No. 12-2000 adopted the rulings in Eduardo Vaca v.
Court
of Appeals (G.R. No. 131714, 16 November 1998, 298 SCRA 656) and
Rosa Lim v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 130038, 18 September
2000)
as a policy of the Supreme Court on the matter of the imposition of
penalties
for violations of B.P.
Blg. 22, without mentioning whether subsidiary imprisonment could
be
resorted to in case of the accused's inability to pay the fine.cralaw:red
The clear tenor and
intention of Administrative
Circular No. 12-2000 is not to remove imprisonment as an
alternative
penalty, but to lay down a rule of preference in the application of the
penalties provided for in B.P.
Blg. 22.
The pursuit of this
purpose clearly does not foreclose the possibility of imprisonment for
violations of B.P.
Blg. 22. Neither does it defeat the legislative intent behind the
law.cralaw:red
Thus, Administrative
Circular No. 12-2000 establishes a rule of preference in the
application
of the penal provisions of B.P.
Blg. 22 such that where the circumstances of both the offense and
the
offender clearly indicate good faith or a clear mistake of fact without
taint of negligence, the imposition of a fine alone should be
considered
as the more appropriate 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 be deemed a hindrance.cralaw:red
It is, therefore,
understood that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
1. Administrative
Circular 12-2000 does not remove imprisonment as an alternative
penalty
for violations of B.P.
Blg. 22;
2. The
Judges concerned
may, in the exercise of sound discretion, and taking into consideration
the peculiar circumstances of each case, determine whether the
imposition
of a fine alone would best serve the interests of justice or whether
forbearing
to impose imprisonment would depreciate the seriousness of the offense,
work violence on the social order, or otherwise be contrary to the
imperatives
of justice;
3. Should
only a
fine be imposed and the accused be unable to pay the fine, there is no
legal obstacle to the application of the Revised
Penal Code provisions on subsidiary imprisonment.cralaw:red
The issuance of this
Administrative Circular was authorized by the Court En Banc in
A.M.
No. 00-11-01-SC at its session of 13 February 2001.
The Clerk of Court
of the Supreme Court and the Court Administrator shall immediately
cause
the implementation of this Administrative Circular.cralaw:red
This Administrative
Circular shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation not
later
than 20 February 2001.
Issued this
14th
day of February, 2001.cralaw:red
[Sgd.]
HILARIO
G. DAVIDE, JR.Chief
Justice
|