People v. Veridiano II
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Benito Go Bio, Jr. was charged with violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) for issuing a post-dated check in the amount of P200,000.00 to Filipinas Tan. The information alleged that the check was issued around the second week of May 1979, and it was dishonored on September 26, 1979, due to insufficient funds. Procedural History: Before arraignment, respondent Go Bio, Jr. filed a Motion to Quash the information, arguing that Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 had not yet taken effect at the time of the alleged commission of the offense (second week of May 1979). The prosecution countered that the offense was committed on the date of dishonor (September 26, 1979), when the law was already in effect. Respondent judge granted the motion to quash, ruling that the date of issuance, not dishonor, is the reckoning point and that Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 could not be given retroactive effect. The prosecution appealed. The Petition: The People of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, filed a petition for review on certiorari, assailing the dismissal of the criminal action against private respondent for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.
Issue(s)
Whether Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 was effective at the time of the issuance of the check. Whether the date of issuance or the date of dishonor of the check is the controlling date for the commission of the offense under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the criminal action against private respondent Benito Go Bio, Jr. The Court held that Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 was not yet effective at the time of the issuance of the check, and therefore, no violation of the said law could have been committed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the effectivity of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22: The Court affirmed the dismissal, citing the certification from the Official Gazette Section that the April 9, 1979 issue was officially released for circulation only on June 14, 1979. The Court emphasized that a penal statute must be published to be binding, and the date of actual publication, not the printed date, is controlling. Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 explicitly states that it shall take effect fifteen days after publication in the Official Gazette. Since the check was issued in May 1979, before the actual publication and effectivity of the law, the accused could not have violated it. The Court rejected the argument that the printed date of the Official Gazette should be the reckoning point, as the law requires publication to make its contents known to the people. On the controlling date for the offense: The Court reiterated that Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 penalizes the act of making, drawing, and issuing a check without sufficient funds or credit, not merely the fact of its dishonor. The title of the law itself, "AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR DRAWING AND ISSUANCE OF A CHECK WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR CREDIT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," and the provisions of Sections 1 and 2 clearly indicate that the offense is consummated at the time of issuance. Therefore, the date of issuance of the check, which was in May 1979, is the relevant date for determining the applicability of the law, not the date of dishonor in September 1979. Even if the law became effective on June 29, 1979, it could not be applied retroactively to an act committed prior to its effectivity.
Main Doctrine
A penal statute takes effect only after its publication in the Official Gazette and the lapse of the prescribed period thereafter. The date of issuance of a check, not its dishonor, is the date of the offense under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. However, the law cannot be applied retroactively if it was not yet effective at the time of the issuance of the check.