G.R. No. L-62243 - People vs. Veridiano II

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-62243)

Facts as Alleged in the Information

The information alleges that around the second week of May 1979 the accused made, drew and issued BPI Check No. D-357726 for P200,000, knowingly without sufficient funds, and that upon presentation the check was dishonored because of insufficient funds; despite demands, the accused failed to redeem the check. The prosecution later relied on the date of dishonor (allegedly September 26, 1979) as the date of commission for purposes of applying BP Blg. 22.

Procedural Posture

Before arraignment, the accused moved to quash the information on the ground that BP Blg. 22 had not yet taken effect at the time the check was issued (second week of May 1979) and therefore the information did not charge an offense under that statute. The trial court granted the motion to quash and cancelled the bail bond. The People sought review of that dismissal.

Defense Argument on Non-Applicability of BP Blg. 22

The accused argued that the offense penalized by BP Blg. 22 is the making, drawing and issuance of a check without sufficient funds or credit, and that those acts occurred in May 1979 when the statute was not yet in effect. Thus, he contended the statute cannot be applied retroactively to conduct that predated its effectivity.

Prosecution’s Counterarguments

The prosecution argued that the operative date of commission was the date when the check was presented and dishonored (September 26, 1979), after BP Blg. 22 had taken effect, and that therefore the law was applicable to the alleged conduct.

Trial Court’s Reasoning and Ruling

The trial court concluded that the relevant date for liability under BP Blg. 22 is the date of making, drawing and issuance of the check, not the date of its maturity or dishonor. The court observed administrative guidance from the Minister of Justice (cited resolutions) supporting that view. Because the accused’s acts occurred in May 1979, prior to the law’s effectivity, the court held BP Blg. 22 could not be given retroactive application and dismissed the complaint, although it noted that civil or other criminal remedies such as estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code might still be available.

Key Legal Issue Presented on Review

Whether BP Blg. 22 was in force at the time the accused made, drew and issued the check (second week of May 1979), such that the accused could be criminally prosecuted under that statute; and, relatedly, whether the date of issuance or the date of dishonor controls the question of the statute’s applicability.

Evidence Concerning Publication and Effectivity of BP Blg. 22

The Solicitor General admitted a certification from the Official Gazette’s Copy Editor that the Official Gazette issue bearing the printed date April 9, 1979 (Volume 75, No. 15) was officially released for circulation on June 14, 1979. Given the statute’s effectivity clause—“This Act shall take effect fifteen days after publication in the Official Gazette”—the Supreme Court treated June 14, 1979 as the actual date of publication and therefore June 29, 1979 as the date the law became effective.

Governing Legal Principle on Publication and Penal Effectivity

The Court emphasized the fundamental constitutional and statutory principle that penal statutes must be published and the public given official notice before persons can be bound by their terms. The effectivity clause’s reference to publication was given its ordinary meaning—actual dissemination to the public. The Court rejected relying on the printed date of an Official Gazette issue when the official release for circulation occurred later; in the absence of actual publication prior to the alleged offense, the penal provision could not be applied retroactively.

Statutory Construction: Act of Issuance Is the Penalized Conduct

The Court analyzed BP Blg. 22’s language and title, noting that the statute penalizes the “making or drawing and issuance of a check without sufficient funds or credit.” Sections 1 and 2, as quoted in the opinion, show the statute targets the act of issuing a check when the issuer knows at the time that funds or credit are insufficient, and it identifies how knowledge may be evidenced. Because the act penalized occurs at the time of issuance, liability under BP Blg. 22 depends on the law’s effectivity at that time, not merely on the later dishonor date.

Holding and Disposition

Because the accused issued the check in the se

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-62243)

Citation and Court

Reported at 217 Phil. 491.
First Division of the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
G.R. No. L-62243.
Decision promulgated October 12, 1984.
Decision penned by Justice Relova.

Parties

Petitioner: People of the Philippines.
Respondents: 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. (private respondent).

Nature of the Case

Petition for review on certiorari by the People of the Philippines challenging the dismissal by the respondent judge (Hon. Regino Veridiano II) of a criminal action against Benito Go Bio, Jr. for alleged violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (the "Bouncing Checks Law").

Facts

Benito Go Bio, Jr. was charged in Criminal Case No. 5396 in the then Court of First Instance of Zambales.
The information charged that on or about the second week of May 1979, in Olongapo City, Go Bio issued Bank of Philippines Islands Check No. D-357726 in the amount of P200,000.00, guaranteeing its authenticity and with intent to defraud Filipinas Tan, knowing he had no sufficient funds in the Bank of the Philippine Islands.
The information alleged that upon presentation of the check for encashment it was dishonored because of insufficient funds, and despite repeated demands by the payee, Go Bio failed to redeem or pay the amount, to the damage of Filipinas Tan.
Before arraignment, Go Bio filed a Motion to Quash the information on the ground that at the time the alleged offense was committed (about the second week of May 1979), Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 had not yet taken effect.
The prosecution opposed the motion, asserting among other things that the date of the dishonor (September 26, 1979) was the date of commission of the offense and, assuming Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 took effect on June 29, 1979, the law was applicable because the dishonor occurred after that date.
Go Bio replied that the law penalizes the act of making/drawing and issuing a check without sufficient funds or credit, i.e., the act at the time of issuance (May 1979), not merely the later dishonor.

Procedural History in the Trial Court

The respondent judge granted Go Bio’s Motion to Quash and cancelled his bail bond.
In the order dated August 23, 1982, the trial judge concluded the accused could not be held liable under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 for checks drawn prior to the law’s effectivity, even if the check matured after such effectivity.
The trial court referenced resolutions and precedent (Resolution No. 67, S. 1981, Peoples Car vs. Eduardo N. Tan, Feb. 3, 1981; Resolution No. 192, S. 1981, Ricardo de Guia vs. Agapito Miranda, March 20, 1981) indicating the date of drawing/issuance is the date to be reckoned with for liability under the statute.
The trial court held that although estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code might be available, Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 could not be given retroactive effect to apply to the facts.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the respondent judge erred in dismissing the criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 on the ground that the statute was not yet in effect at the time the check was issued.
Whether the effective date of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 should be reckoned from the printed date of the Official Gazette (April 9, 1979) or from the actual release/publication date (certified June 14, 1979), and consequently whether the law was in effect at the time the check was issued in May 1979.
Whether the date of commission of the offense under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 is the date of issuance of the check or the later date of dishonor/presentation for encashment.

Arguments of the Parties (as presented in the source)

Petitioner (People of the Philippines):
- Asserted that Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 was published in the Official Gazette dated April 9, 1979.
- Argued that counting fifteen (15) days from April 9, 1979 yields April 24, 1979, a date before the issuance of the check in the second week of May 1979, making the law applicable at the time of issuance.
- Contended that the trial judge should not have considered the date the Gazette was released for circulation because Section 11 of the Revised Administrative Code provides that the Gazette is conclusively presumed published on the day indicated therein as the date of issue.
- Advanced the alternative contention that the offense was committed on September 26, 1979, the date o