The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the fine with imprisonment, if not paid, imposed by the trial court and upheld by the Court of Appeals (CA) on a person who issued a bouncing check or a check that was dishonored when presented for encashment.
Affirmed in the SC resolution released last month was the P200,000 fine imposed on Mary Grace V. Valbuena who was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the trial court of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the Bouncing Checks Law.
Aside from the fine, Valbuena was ordered to pay RCBC Securities, Inc. the face value of the dishonored check amounting to P7.2 million with interest.
The SC resolution did not state the circumstances behind Valbuena’s issuance of a check as payment to RCBC Securities.
On Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the SC said:
“It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes, as the law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt.
“The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation….”
At the same time, the SC said its earlier ruling in 2003 had clarified that its circular issued in 2000 did not remove the penalty of imprisonment as an alternative penalty for issuers of bouncing checks.
It said, the circular “laid down the rule of preference in the application of the penalties provided for in BP 22, in 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.”
It also said “the determination of whether the circumstances warrant the imposition of a fine alone rests solely upon the judge, and that should the judge decide that imprisonment is the more appropriate penalty, Administrative Circular 12-2000 ought not be deemed a hindrance.”
Dismissing Valbuena’s petition, the SC said:
“As correctly ruled by the CA, the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the crime charged, since it was proven that: (a) petitioner admitted issuing the subject check; (b) said check was subsequently dishonored by Banco De Oro (BDO) Kamuning Branch upon presentment for payment by respondent; (c) petitioner was aware that her BDO account had no sufficient funds at the time she issued said check, since she was served with the Notice of Dishonor and demand for payment by respondent on four (4) different occasions; and (d) despite said knowledge, petitioner failed to make good the value of the check.”