G.R. No. 199480 - People vs. Valeriano

Albino S. Co., representing Mayflower Shipping Corporation, contracted with Trans-Pacific Towage, Inc. for salvage and refloating of a sunken vessel. Expenses were chiefly shouldered by FGU Insurance (₱2,329,022.00) and Development Bank of the Philippines (₱1,579,000.00).
On September 1, 1983, Albino Co. delivered to the salvaging firm a postdated check (Nov. 30, 1983) for ₱361,528.00 drawn on Associated Citizens’ Bank. The check was deposited January 3, 1984, and dishonored January 5, 1984, for “CLOSED ACCOUNT.”

The salvage company filed a complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (“Bouncing Checks Law”) with the RTC of Pasay City. The RTC convicted Albino Co., sentencing him to 60 days’ imprisonment and indemnity of ₱361,528.00.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on People v. Que (154 SCRA 160 (1987)), which held that a check issued as guarantee still falls under BP 22.

Ministry of Justice Circular No. 4 (Dec. 15, 1981) declared that checks issued solely to guarantee or secure obligations are not punishable under BP 22 or estafa.
Ministry Circular No. 12 (Aug. 8, 1984) reversed Circular No. 4 prospectively: thereafter, issuing a check as guarantee would no longer be a valid defense under BP 22.

Albino Co. filed a Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court; it was initially dismissed (Sept. 9, 1991) and then reinstated motu proprio in the interests of justice.
The Supreme Court granted parties’ submissions (including Solicitor General’s comment and petitioner’s reply) and resolved to decide on the merits.

Whether the Supreme Court’s 1987 decision in Que v. People, applying BP 22 to guarantee checks, should be given retrospective effect to convict acts committed in 1983.
Whether reliance on an official administrative interpretation (Ministry Circular No. 4) constitutes a valid defense against criminal liability under BP 22.
The proper application of the principle of prospectivity to judicial decisions interpreting penal statutes.