Case Summary (G.R. No. L-63419)
Historical Antecedents in Estafa Law
Under Spanish and early Philippine law, issuance of worthless checks was prosecuted as estafa (fraud). An amendment in 1926 explicitly covered checks but omitted those issued for pre-existing debts. Article 315 of the 1932 Revised Penal Code continued this limitation. Republic Act No. 4885 (1967) tried to close the gap by treating failure to cover a dishonored postdated check within three days as prima facie deceit, but courts still held that checks issued for pre-existing debts fell outside estafa’s scope.
Legislative Evolution and Rationale for BP 22
Recognizing that most dishonored checks paid pre-existing debts, the Interim Batasan enacted BP 22 in 1979 to address the “bouncing check” problem directly, treating issuance of a worthless check as malum prohibitum under the state’s police power. Reported daily volume of such checks reached tens of millions of pesos, threatening public confidence in the banking system and impairing commerce.
Interlocutory Appeal and Jurisdiction
Although orders denying motions to quash informations are interlocutory, the Court exercised its discretion to entertain these petitions on the constitutional challenge given the statute’s public importance and the resulting uncertainty in judicial and commercial circles.
Constitutional Challenge: Imprisonment for Debt
Petitioners argued BP 22 effectively punishes non-payment of debt, contravening the constitutional prohibition (“No person shall be imprisoned for debt …”). The Court differentiated between punishing non-payment of obligations (ex contractu) and prohibiting issuance of worthless checks as an offense against public order. Drawing on Philippine and U.S. precedents, it held that laws enacted under police power to outlaw malum prohibitum acts—unrelated to pure debt enforcement—do not violate the debt-imprisonment ban.
Police Power and Public Welfare
The Court affirmed that the state’s inherent police power permits penalizing acts harmful to public welfare, even if they are not malum in se. Issuing worthless checks undermines confidence in demand-deposit banking, which comprised one-third of the money supply, and thus justifies criminal sanctions to protect commerce and public interest.
Other Constitutional Objections
• Freedom of Contract: Protected only for lawful contracts; checks are regulated commercial instruments, not pure private contracts.
• Equal Protectio
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-63419)
Facts of the Case
- Multiple petitions (G.R. Nos. 63419; 66839–42; 71654; 74524–25; 75122–49; 75812–13; 75765–67; 75789) were filed questioning the constitutionality of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the “Bouncing Check Law” or BP 22).
- Offenders charged under BP 22 moved to quash their informations, alleging that the statute was unconstitutional; all motions were denied except in G.R. No. 75789, where the trial court declared BP 22 unconstitutional and dismissed the case.
- Aggrieved parties sought relief before the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari, alleging among others that the orders denying quashals were interlocutory but warrant immediate review due to the importance of the issue.
Statutory Provisions of BP 22
- Section 1 defines the offense: making, drawing or issuing any check knowing insufficient funds or credit, which is subsequently dishonored for insufficiency of funds or credit.
- Section 1 prescribes penalty: imprisonment of 30 days to 1 year or a fine not less than the amount of the check nor more than double its amount (capped at ₱200,000), or both, at the court’s discretion.
- A second paragraph penalizes the drawer who initially had sufficient funds but neglected to maintain them for 90 days, leading to dishonor.
- Section 2 creates a prima facie presumption of knowledge of insufficiency if the check is dishonored within 90 days, unless the maker arranges payment or settles within five banking days of notice.
- Section 3 makes the dishonored, stamped or annotated check prima facie proof of issuance, presentment and dishonor for the stated reason.
Historical and Legal Antecedents
- Under the Spanish Penal Code (Art. 335) and its 1926 amendment (Act No. 3313), issuance of worthless checks was punished as a form of estafa (swindling).
- The 1932 Revised Penal Code, in Art. 315 (estafa), proscribed issuance of checks knowing insufficient funds, bu