However, we resolve to modify the penalty imposed on petitioner.  B.P. No. 22 provides a penalty of “imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one 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 two hundred thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the Court.”²⁸ [Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, Section 1.]

In Vaca v. Court of Appeals,²⁹ [Vaca v. Court of Appeals, supra, Note 26.] we held that in determining the penalty to be imposed for violation of B.P. No. 22, the philosophy underlying the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies.  The philosophy is to redeem valuable human material, and to prevent unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness with due regard to the protection of the social order.  There, we deleted the prison sentence imposed on petitioners.  We imposed on them only a fine double the amount of the check issued.  We considered the fact that petitioners brought the appeal, believing in good faith, that no violation of B.P. No. 22 was committed, “otherwise, they would have simply accepted the judgment of the trial court and applied for probation to evade prison term.”³⁰ [Vaca v. Court of Appeals, supra, at p. 664.] We do the same here.  We believe such would best serve the ends of criminal justice.

Consequently, we delete the prison sentences imposed on petitioner.  The two fines imposed for each violation, each amounting to P200,000.00 are appropriate and sufficient.

The award of moral damages and order to pay attorney’s fees are deleted for lack of sufficient basis.

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM with modification the decision of the Court of Appeals.³¹ [In CA-G.R. CR No. 14641.] We find petitioner Rosa Lim guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.  We SET ASIDE the sentence of imprisonment and hereby sentence her only to pay a fine of P200,000.00 in each case, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency or non-payment not to exceed six (6) months.³² [See Article 39, par. 2, Revised Penal Code; Diongzon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114822, December 23, 1999; Llamado v. Court of Appeals, 337 Phil. 153 (1997).] We DELETE the award of moral damages and attorney’s fees.  The rest of the judgment of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals shall stand.  Costs against petitioner.

En Banc, Justice Pardo, ROSA LIM, petitioner, vs., PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent, [G.R. No. 130038.  September 18, 2000]  

However, we resolve to modify the penalty imposed on petitioner.  B.P. No. 22 provides a penalty of “imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one 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 two hundred thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the Court.”²⁸ [Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, Section 1.]

In Vaca v. Court of Appeals,²⁹ [Vaca v. Court of Appeals, supra, Note 26.] we held that in determining the penalty to be imposed for violation of B.P. No. 22, the philosophy underlying the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies.  The philosophy is to redeem valuable human material, and to prevent unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness with due regard to the protection of the social order.  There, we deleted the prison sentence imposed on petitioners.  We imposed on them only a fine double the amount of the check issued.  We considered the fact that petitioners brought the appeal, believing in good faith, that no violation of B.P. No. 22 was committed, “otherwise, they would have simply accepted the judgment of the trial court and applied for probation to evade prison term.”³⁰ [Vaca v. Court of Appeals, supra, at p. 664.] We do the same here.  We believe such would best serve the ends of criminal justice.

Consequently, we delete the prison sentences imposed on petitioner.  The two fines imposed for each violation, each amounting to P200,000.00 are appropriate and sufficient.

The award of moral damages and order to pay attorney’s fees are deleted for lack of sufficient basis.

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM with modification the decision of the Court of Appeals.³¹ [In CA-G.R. CR No. 14641.] We find petitioner Rosa Lim guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.  We SET ASIDE the sentence of imprisonment and hereby sentence her only to pay a fine of P200,000.00 in each case, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency or non-payment not to exceed six (6) months.³² [See Article 39, par. 2, Revised Penal Code; Diongzon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114822, December 23, 1999; Llamado v. Court of Appeals, 337 Phil. 153 (1997).] We DELETE the award of moral damages and attorney’s fees.  The rest of the judgment of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals shall stand.  Costs against petitioner.

En Banc, Justice Pardo, ROSA LIM, petitioner, vs., PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent, [G.R. No. 130038.  September 18, 2000]  

This court has in several occasions, imposed subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency to pay the fine for violation of special laws, notwithstanding the absence of such provision in said laws. [See People v, Moreno, 60 Phil. 712 (1934) and Copiaco v. Luzon Brokerage, 66 Phil. 184 (1938) (Revised Motor Vehicles Act); People v. Abedes, 268 SCRA 619 (1997) and Zanoria v. Court of Appeals, 247 Phil. 538 (1997) (Dangerous Drugs Act)] In Llamado v. Court of Appeals, we imposed subsidiary imprisonment on petitioner who was convicted of violating B.P. Blg. 22.

RE: PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF B.P. BLG. 22

Section 1 of B.P. Blg. 22 (An Act Penalizing te 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 tan 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:

Petitioner 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. Other wise 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 §1, par. 1, the same philosophy underlying the Indeterminate Sentence Law is observe, namely, that of redeeming valuable human material and preventing unnecessary deprivation f personal liberty and economic usefulness with due regard to the protection f 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 pf the foregoing policy of  of the Supreme Court on the matter of the  imposition of penalties for violations of B.P. Blg. 22.

Supreme Court Administrative Circular 12-2000, November 21 2000, Chief Justice Davide  

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.

Supreme Court  Administrative Circular 13-2001, January 14, 2001

However, we resolve to modify the penalty imposed on petitioner.  B.P. No. 22 provides a penalty of “imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one 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 two hundred thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the Court.”²⁸ [Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, Section 1.]

In Vaca v. Court of Appeals,²⁹ [Vaca v. Court of Appeals, supra, Note 26.] we held that in determining the penalty to be imposed for violation of B.P. No. 22, the philosophy underlying the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies.  The philosophy is to redeem valuable human material, and to prevent unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness with due regard to the protection of the social order.  There, we deleted the prison sentence imposed on petitioners.  We imposed on them only a fine double the amount of the check issued.  We considered the fact that petitioners brought the appeal, believing in good faith, that no violation of B.P. No. 22 was committed, “otherwise, they would have simply accepted the judgment of the trial court and applied for probation to evade prison term.”³⁰ [Vaca v. Court of Appeals, supra, at p. 664.] We do the same here.  We believe such would best serve the ends of criminal justice.

Consequently, we delete the prison sentences imposed on petitioner.  The two fines imposed for each violation, each amounting to P200,000.00 are appropriate and sufficient.

The award of moral damages and order to pay attorney’s fees are deleted for lack of sufficient basis.

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM with modification the decision of the Court of Appeals.³¹ [In CA-G.R. CR No. 14641.] We find petitioner Rosa Lim guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.  We SET ASIDE the sentence of imprisonment and hereby sentence her only to pay a fine of P200,000.00 in each case, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency or non-payment not to exceed six (6) months.³² [See Article 39, par. 2, Revised Penal Code; Diongzon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114822, December 23, 1999; Llamado v. Court of Appeals, 337 Phil. 153 (1997).] We DELETE the award of moral damages and attorney’s fees.  The rest of the judgment of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals shall stand.  Costs against petitioner.

En Banc, Justice Pardo, ROSA LIM, petitioner, vs., PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent, [G.R. No. 130038.  September 18, 2000]