We previously noted that even if an accused is found guilty in violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) or the Anti-Bouncing Checks law, it’s possible that no imprisonment will be imposed. The Supreme Court had long issued a Circular containing its policy on the matter of the imposition of penalties.

BP 22 imposes the penalty of imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not more than 1 year, or both imprisonment and fine. The court has the choice which penalty to impose. It has the discretion to impose both.

It also has the discretion to punish the culprit only with a fine. The amount should not be less than, but not more than, double the amount of the check. The maximum amount of fine that may be imposed is P200,000.

For instance, the penalty in one case was modified by imposing only the penalty of fine in an amount double the amount of the check. The penalty of imprisonment was removed. Take note of the reference to the contribution of Filipino entrepreneurs in the reasoning of the court:

Petitioner are first-time offenders. They are Filipino entrepreneurs who presumably contribute to the national economy.  Apparently, they brought this appeal, believing in all good faith, although mistakenly that they had not committed a violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Other wise they could simply have accepted the judgment of the trial court and applied for probation to evade a prison term.  It would best serve the ends of criminal justice if in fixing the penalty within the range of discretion allowed by §1, par. 1, the same philosophy underlying the Indeterminate Sentence Law is observe, namely, that of redeeming valuable human material and preventing unnecessary deprivation f personal liberty and economic usefulness with due regard to the protection f the social order.  In this case we believe that a fine in an amount equal to double the amount of the check involved is an appropriate penalty to impose on each of the petitioners.

Indeed, when “the circumstances of both the offense and the offender clearly indicate good faith or a clear mistake of fact without taint of negligence, the imposition of a fine along should be considered as the more appropriate penalty.”

However, it’s incorrect to conclude that BP 22 has been decriminalized. BP 22 is still criminal in nature even if only a fine is imposed. The culprit will have a criminal record with the police authorities. More importantly, the court has the discretion to impose imprisonment “taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of each case”.

(Sources: Eduardo Vaca vs. Court of Appeals; Rosa Lim vs. People of the Philippines)

• Bouncing Checks (BP 22): Matters a Layman Should Know
• Batas Pambansa Blg. 22: Bouncing Checks Law
• Bouncing Checks (BP 22): An Extended Discussion
• Insolvency and Criminal Cases
• AM 00-11-01-SC (Administrative Circular re Penalty for Violation of BP 22)
• Primer on the Personal Equity and Retirement Account (PERA) Act
• DTI Department Administrative Order No. 10 (Series of 2006)