Case Digest (G.R. No. L-62243)
Facts:
In the case People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Regino Veridiano II, as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zambales and Olongapo City, Branch I, and Benito Go Bio, Jr., the private respondent Benito Go Bio, Jr. was charged with violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law in Criminal Case No. 5396 before the Court of First Instance of Zambales, presided by respondent Judge Regino Veridiano II. The information alleged that around the second week of May 1979, Go Bio issued a check (Bank of Philippine Island Check No. D-357726) for ₱200,000 without having sufficient funds in the bank, intending to defraud one Filipinas Tan. When presented for encashment on September 26, 1979, the check was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Despite demands to settle, Go Bio failed to pay. Before arraignment, Go Bio filed a motion to quash the information contending the offense was not punishable under BP Blg. 22 as the law had not taken effect at the time the chec
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-62243)
Facts:
- Private respondent Benito Go Bio, Jr. was charged with violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) in Criminal Case No. 5396 before the Court of First Instance of Zambales.
- The information alleged that around the second week of May 1979, Go Bio issued Bank of Philippine Island Check No. D-357726 amounting to P200,000 without sufficient funds in his account.
- Upon presentation for encashment, the check was dishonored due to insufficient funds.
- Despite repeated demands by the offended party, Filipinas Tan, Go Bio failed to redeem or pay the amount stated on the check.
- Before arraignment, Go Bio filed a Motion to Quash the information on the ground that Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 was not yet in effect at the time the offense was allegedly committed.
- Go Bio asserted that the law penalizes the act of making or issuing a bouncing check, not the dishonor incident itself.
- The prosecution argued the date of commission was the date of dishonor, September 26, 1979, which is after the law’s effectivity.
- The respondent judge granted the Motion to Quash, ruling:
- The relevant date for the offense is the date of issuance or drawing of the check, not its maturity or dishonor date.
- Since the check was issued prior to the law taking effect, the accused cannot be held liable under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, though estafa may still be chargeable.
- Petitioner (People of the Philippines) filed this petition for review, contending:
- Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 was published in the Official Gazette dated April 9, 1979.
- Fifteen days after publication, i.e., April 24, 1979, the law took effect, which was before the check’s issuance date in May 1979.
- The respondent judge erred by relying on the date of physical release of the Gazette for circulation instead of the printed date.
- In opposition, private respondent Go Bio argued:
- Although the Official Gazette bore the April 9 date, it was not actually released until June 14, 1979.
- The law could only take effect fifteen days after official publication, making it effective only on June 29, 1979, thus after the check was issued.
- The Court took judicial notice of the certification by the Official Gazette Copy Editor that the April 9, 1979 issue was released for circulation only on June 14, 1979.
- The Court ruled that publication must be understood as actual release to the public, making June 14, 1979 the date of publication, not April 9, 1979.
Issues:
- Whether or not Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 was in effect at the time the accused issued the bouncing check.
- Whether the date of the offense is the date the check was issued or the date of its dishonor.
- Whether the information charging the accused should be quashed for failure to state an offense under the applicable law.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)