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]