G.R. No. L-63419 December 18, 1986
FACTS:
The constitutionality of Batas Pambansa
Bilang 22 (BP 22 for short), popularly known as the Bouncing Check Law, which was
approved on April 3, 1979, is the sole issue presented by these petitions for
decision. These petitions arose from cases involving prosecution of offenses
under the statute. The defendants in those cases moved seasonably to quash the
informations on the ground that the acts charged did not constitute an offense,
the statute being unconstitutional. The motions were denied by the respondent
trial courts, except in one case, which is the subject of G. R. No. 75789,
wherein the trial court declared the law unconstitutional and dismissed the
case.
ISSUE:
Has BP 22 transgressed the
constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for debt?
RULING:
No, BP 22 does not conflict with the
constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for debt. While a debtor cannot
be imprisoned for failure to pay his debt, he can be validly punished in a
criminal action if he contracted his debt through fraud.
It may be constitutionally impermissible
for the legislature to penalize a person for non-payment of a debt ex contractu But certainly it is within the
prerogative of the lawmaking body to proscribe certain acts deemed pernicious
and inimical to public welfare. Acts mala in se are not the only acts which
the law can punish. An act may not be considered by society as inherently
wrong, hence, not malum in se but because of the harm that
it inflicts on the community, it can be outlawed and criminally punished as malum prohibitum. The state can do this in the exercise of
its police power.
BP 22 punishes a person "who makes
or draws and issues any check on account or for value, knowing at the time of
issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank
for the payment of said check in full upon presentment, which check is
subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit
or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without
any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment."
An essential element of the offense is
"knowledge" on the part of the maker or drawer of the check of the
insufficiency of his funds in or credit with the bank to cover the check upon
its presentment. Since this involves a state of mind difficult to establish,
the statute itself creates a prima
facie presumption of such
knowledge where payment of the check "is refused by the drawee because of
insufficient funds in or credit with such bank when presented within ninety
(90) days from the date of the check.
To mitigate the harshness of the law in its application, the statute provides
that such presumption shall not arise if within five (5) banking days from
receipt of the notice of dishonor, the maker or drawer makes arrangements for
payment of the check by the bank or pays the holder the amount of the check.
BP 22 is aimed at putting a stop to or
curbing the practice of issuing checks that are worthless, i.e. checks that end
up being rejected or dishonored for payment. The practice, as discussed later,
is proscribed by the state because of the injury it causes to public interests.
The
gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a
worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for
payment. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes. The
law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit,
under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting them
in circulation. Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the
practice is proscribed by the law. The law punishes the act not as an offense
against property, but an offense against public order.
No comments:
Post a Comment