|
Query: A neighbor bought a car costing P400,000. Upon the execution
of the contract of sale, he was required by the car company to pay
one-fourth of said amount. As he was allegedly short of cash, he
asked me to issue a check for P50,000 to guarantee payment. I issued
a check for said amount. Subsequently, I gathered that said neighbor
had disappeared with the car—and nowhere to be found.
I, therefore, ordered my bank to stop the
payment of the check. But the car company sued me for violation of
the Bouncing Checks Law. Said accusation intrigued me, for I had
issued the check merely to guarantee the obligation of my neighbor
to pay for said car. I asked myself why the company did not go after
my neighbor. Besides, I had ordered the bank to stop the payment of
the check for a valid reason. Can you please inform me if I am
directly liable for the obligation incurred by my neighbor? Thank
you.
Pete A.
Reply
Legally referred to as Batas Pambansa Bilang 22,
the Bouncing Checks Law penalizes the making or drawing and issuance
of a check without sufficient funds for credit and for other
purposes. It imposes a penalty of imprisonment of not less than
thirty days but not more than a year or a fine of not less than but
not more than double the amount of the check, which should not
exceed P200,000, or both at the discretion of the court.
The elements of the offense under BP 22 are:
(1) the making, drawing and issuance of any
check to apply to account or for value; (2) the maker, drawer or
issuer knows at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient
funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such
check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the check is
subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of
funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason
had not the drawer, without any valid reason or cause, ordered the
bank to stop payment. (Bautista v. Court of Appeals, 360 SCRA 618;
Meriz v. People, 368 SCRA 524; Villaber v. Commission on Elections,
369 SCRA 126).
The Supreme Court, however, in its decision in
Eduardo Vaca v. Court of Appeals, (G.R. No.131714, 16 November 1998;
298 SCRA 656), modified the sentence imposed for violation of BP 22
by deleting the penalty of imprisonment and imposing only the
penalty of fine in an amount double the amount of the check. The
High Tribunal said:
Petitioners are first-time offenders. They are
Filipino entrepreneurs who presumably contribute to the national
economy.
Apparently, they brought this appeal, believing
in good faith, although mistakenly, that they had not violated BP
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… 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.
Again in the case of Rosa Lim v. People of the
Philippines (G.R. No. 130038, 18 September 2000), the Supreme Court
en banc, applying the Vaca case, also deleted the penalty of
imprisonment and sentenced the drawer of the bounced check to the
maximum of the fine allowed by BP 22, i.e., P200,000, and concluded
that “such would best serve the ends of criminal justice.”
Upon clarification sought by judges and other
parties regarding the operation of Administrative Circular No.
12-2000 issued on November 21, 2000, the Supreme Court issued SC
Adm. Circular No. 13-2001 stating that it 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 BP
22. The pursuit of this purpose clearly does not foreclose the
possibility of imprisonment for violators of BP 22. Neither does it
defeat the legislative intent behind the law.
In your case, however, since the order to stop
pay was for a valid reason or cause, you cannot be held liable for
violation of BP 22.
____
Above all things, let us reflect on the statement of our Lord and
Master Jesus Christ: “Human beings cannot live on bread alone, but
need every word that God speaks.” (Matthew 4:4).
|
