SC
CLARIFIES CIRCULAR ON BOUNCING CHECKS LAW
When SC Administrative Circular 12-2000
concerning the penalty for violation of B.P. 22 or the Bouncing Checks
Law was issued last November 21, 2000, members of the Judiciary, as well
as the general public, asked for its clarification. Some called the
Circular a form of "judicial legislation" which amended B.P.
22 by "deleting" the penalty of subsidiary imprisonment for
persons who violate this law.
Administrative Circular 13-2001, issued today by Chief Justice Davide,
clarifies Circular 12-2000, particularly the authority of judges to
impose the penalty of imprisonment for B.P. 22 violations and impose
subsidiary imprisonment once a person found guilty of violating the
provisions of the said law is unable to pay the fine sentenced.
The Circular said that the "clear tenor and intention of
Administrative Circular 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. 22."
This means 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."
The decision to impose only a fine, according to the Circular, rests
solely on the Judge. The Court stressed that "should the Judge
decide that imprisonment is the more appropriate penalty, Administrative
Circular 12-2000 ought not be deemed a hindrance."
Thus, Administrative Circular 12-2000 does not remove imprisonment as an
alternative penalty for violations of B.P. 22. The Court also stressed
that "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