Commercial pollution

Where the circumstances of both the offender and the offense clearly indicate good faith or a patent mistake of fact without taint of negligence, the imposition of a fine alone, instead of imprisonment, should be the more appropriate penalty for the violation of the Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22). This is provided in the Supreme Court Administrative Circular 12-2000 as clarified in Adm. Circular 13-2001. And this is what Tito tried to invoke when he was convicted of 12 counts of violation of the said law.

The cases against Tito stemmed from his issuance of 64 checks to Luis for purposes of rediscounting, including the 12 checks totaling P1,392,500 subject of the informations filed against him. These checks were signed by Tito in front of Luis at the latter’s office. Upon respective dates of maturity, each of the twelve checks were deposited by Luis at his bank. But all of them were dishonored for the reason "Account Closed". Despite notice to Tito and demand for the payments of the checks, Tito failed to comply with his promise to settle the account in two to three weeks.

The lower court convicted Tito despite the latter’s defense that the obligation covering said checks was not his but that of a Corporation and that he issued the said checks only as replacements of the previous bad checks issued by the corporation. The court did not believe Tito’s claim that the corporate obligation has already been paid. In fact aside from the 64 checks issued by Tito, including the subject 12 checks, he likewise issued 50 other checks for which he was already prosecuted and convicted together with a co-signatory but were only placed on probation. So the court sentenced him to six months imprisonment for each of the twelve counts and to pay Luis P1,392,500 plus 12 percent interest. The decision of the lower court was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, Tito invoked the provisions of Adm. Circular 12-2000.He contended that his prior conviction for 50 counts should not be taken against him in imposing the penalty. He argued that these 50 checks were part of the 64 checks so there should have been only one complaint or information for all the checks since he was moved by only one criminal intent or purpose. His prospects of languishing in jail was only because of the fact that the sixty four bum checks he issued were divided into two criminal informations.

Was Tito correct?

No.

The fifty checks subject of his prior conviction and the twelve checks subject of the present case which are part of the sixty four checks he issued to Luis are different from each other.

His act of issuing the fifty and twelve of the sixty- four bouncing checks is a serious offense. To impose only a fine would be to depreciate the seriousness of his malfeasances. The importance of arresting the proliferation of bouncing checks cannot be overemphasized.

Besides, it is of no moment even if the fifty checks were part of the sixty-four checks because each act of drawing and issuing a bouncing check constitutes a violation of B.P. Blg. 22. The rule that there is only one offense when the offender is moved by one criminal intent or purpose does not apply because in a statutory offense, or malum prohibitum, malice or criminal intent is immaterial. The mischief of circulating unfunded checks is injurious not only to the payee or holder of such check but to society in general, and the business community in particular. The nefarious practice can very well pollute the channels of trade and commerce, injure the banking system and eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public interest. (Lim vs. People, G.R. 143231, Oct. 26,2001).

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]