The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Nieves Saguiguit for violating Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 22, the Bouncing Checks Law, emphasizing that the mere issuance of a dishonored check constitutes the offense, regardless of the issuer’s intent. This decision reinforces the principle of strict liability in BP 22 cases, aimed at curbing the harmful practice of circulating worthless checks and maintaining the integrity of the Philippine financial system. The Court clarified that the law’s primary goal is to penalize the act of issuing a bouncing check, not the underlying purpose or agreement related to its issuance, thus upholding a long-standing precedent.

Bad Checks, Good Intentions? Examining Liability Under BP 22

In Nieves A. Saguiguit v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 144054, the petitioner, Nieves Saguiguit, sought to overturn her conviction on eight counts of violating BP 22. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City originally found Saguiguit guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Saguiguit contended that the law should not apply when there is no malicious intent to commit a crime, arguing that the checks were issued without the intention to defraud. She urged the Supreme Court to re-examine jurisprudence holding issuers of dishonored checks liable regardless of intent. The core legal question was whether the intent of the issuer is relevant in determining liability under BP 22, a law designed to penalize the issuance of bouncing checks.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, firmly stating that the Bouncing Checks Law is a matter of mala prohibita, where the act itself is prohibited, irrespective of the intent behind it. The Court referenced the doctrine of stare decisis, emphasizing the importance of adhering to established precedents. The Court asserted that it cannot delve into the wisdom of the statute. Such matters are within the domain of Congress, under the principle of separation of powers. The Court can only interpret and apply the law, not amend or repeal it based on its own views of the law’s wisdom.

The Court stated that legislative wisdom is primarily Congress’s domain. This means that the judiciary’s role is to interpret and apply laws, not to question their rationale. The Court underscored that challenging the constitutionality of BP 22 was not the petitioner’s approach. The petitioner should instead seek legislative amendments if she finds the law’s implications unfavorable. The Supreme Court cited Paloma v. Mora, G.R. No. 157783, September 23, 2005, 470 SCRA 711, 722, reinforcing this idea.

Courts of justice have no right to encroach on the prerogatives of lawmakers, as long as it has not been shown that they have acted with grave abuse of discretion. And while the judiciary may interpret laws and evaluate them for constitutional soundness and to strike them down if they are proven to be infirm, this solemn power and duty do not include the discretion to correct by reading into the law what is not written therein.

The Court emphasized that judicial decisions form an integral part of the legal system, and the principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere—to stand by decisions and not disturb settled matters—must be observed. This doctrine ensures stability and predictability in the legal system, requiring courts to adhere to established principles when faced with substantially similar facts. The Supreme Court’s adherence to stare decisis underscores the need for consistent application of laws, particularly in cases involving BP 22. The Supreme Court cited Ladanga v. Aseneta, G.R. No. 145874, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 381, 388., in this regard.

The Court highlighted the nature of the offense under BP 22 as mala prohibita, where the act itself, irrespective of intent, is what the law seeks to prevent. This principle is central to understanding the strict liability imposed by the law. The Court noted that the primary goal is to prevent the circulation of worthless checks, which pose a threat to the financial system and public order. The judiciary highlighted that the essence of the offense lies in issuing a dishonored check, emphasizing its detrimental impact on trade and commerce. The Court cited Ruiz v. People, G.R. No. 160893, November 18, 2005, 475 SCRA 476, 489-491., in this regard.

[T]he gravamen of the offense is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or any check that is dishonored upon its presentment for payment and putting them in circulation. ….  The law was designed to prohibit and altogether eliminate the deleterious and pernicious practice of issuing checks with insufficient or no credit or funds therefor.  Such practice is deemed a public nuisance, a crime against public order to be abated.  The mere act of issuing a worthless check,  is covered by B.P. 22.  It is a crime classified as malum prohibitum.

In its analysis, the Court referenced its Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, clarifying that imprisonment is not always the primary penalty for BP 22 violations. Instead, a fine equivalent to double the check amount is often more appropriate, especially for first-time offenders or those who acted without clear fraudulent intent. This administrative circular underscores the judiciary’s effort to balance strict enforcement with considerations of justice and rehabilitation. The Supreme Court also cited Go v. Dimagiba, G.R. No. 151876, June 21, 2005, 460 SCRA 451, 462. The court also mentioned Administrative Circular No. 13-2001, which clarified that the circular establishes a rule of preference in the application of the penal provisions of BP Blg. 22. The Judge may in the exercise of sound discretion, and taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of each case, determine whether the imposition of a fine alone would best serve the interests of justice or whether forbearing to impose imprisonment would depreciate the seriousness of the offense, work violence on the social order, or otherwise be contrary to the imperatives of justice.

While affirming Saguiguit’s conviction, the Court modified the penalty to align with the guidelines set forth in the aforementioned administrative circulars. The Court ordered Saguiguit to pay a fine equivalent to double the amount of each check, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to indemnify the private complainant for the total amount of the checks plus interest. The decision reflects the judiciary’s approach of balancing the enforcement of BP 22 with considerations of justice, particularly for offenders who do not appear to be habitual criminals.

FAQs

What is Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 22?	BP 22, also known as the Bouncing Checks Law, penalizes the issuance of checks without sufficient funds or credit, aiming to prevent the circulation of worthless checks.
What does “mala prohibita” mean in the context of BP 22?	“Mala prohibita” means that the act itself (issuing a bouncing check) is prohibited by law, regardless of the intent or moral culpability of the issuer.
Is intent a factor in determining guilt under BP 22?	No, intent is not a crucial factor. The mere act of issuing a check that is subsequently dishonored due to insufficient funds is sufficient to establish guilt under BP 22.
What is the doctrine of “stare decisis”?	“Stare decisis” is a legal principle that courts should follow precedents set in prior decisions, ensuring consistency and stability in the legal system.
What penalties can be imposed for violating BP 22?	Penalties include imprisonment, fines, or both. However, recent administrative circulars favor imposing fines, especially for first-time offenders, with imprisonment only considered under certain circumstances.
What is the significance of SC Administrative Circular No. 12-2000?	SC Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 provides guidelines on penalties for BP 22 violations, favoring the imposition of fines over imprisonment in many cases, particularly for first-time offenders.
Can a person be imprisoned for violating BP 22?	Yes, imprisonment is a possible penalty, but administrative circulars suggest that fines are more appropriate for first-time offenders or cases without clear fraudulent intent.
What should someone do if they are accused of violating BP 22?	Consult with a qualified attorney immediately to understand their rights and legal options, and to navigate the complexities of the law and potential defenses.

In conclusion, the Saguiguit v. People case reinforces the strict liability standard of BP 22, aimed at safeguarding the integrity of financial transactions. The Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to established legal precedents and legislative intent, while also considering mitigating circumstances in sentencing. This ruling serves as a reminder of the legal obligations associated with issuing checks and the potential consequences of non-compliance.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Nieves A. Saguiguit, vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. NO. 144054, June 30, 2006