Our Philippine Constitution prohibits the imposition of imprisonment as a form of penalty for non-payment of debt. Thus, Section 20, Article III states that “no person shall be imprisoned for debt.”
Some debtors issue checks to guarantee their loan. As rubber checks flooded the banking system, Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 otherwise known as the Anti-Bouncing Check Law was passed on April 13, 1979 to deter the crime of estafa through the issuance of bouncing checks. Under the law, mere issuance of a rubber is a crime punishable by imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one year or by a fine of not less than but not more than double the value of the check, which in no case exceeds P200,000 or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum, which means an act that is not inherently immoral but is prohibited by law. It is not the non-payment of the obligation that is being punished, but the making of a worthless check. What the law punishes is issuance of a bum check and not the purpose for which the check was issued. Thus, even if there had been payment through compensation or some other means, there could still be prosecution for violation of B.P. 22.
However, an accused has several Constitutional rights that cannot be violated like rights to be presumed innocent until proven guilty; to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him [Section 14 (2), Article III] and that a decision shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and law on which it is based [Section 14, Article VIII].
What is the effect in B.P. 22 cases if a Constitutional right is violated? The issue was answered in Ongson v. People, G.R. No. 156169, on August 12, 2005. In this case, Uy extended loans to Ongson on separate dates and as payment, the latter issued eight postdated checks that were dishonored and he failed to make good the rubber checks despite demand. Eight pieces of Information for B.P. 22 were filed. On arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. On pre-trial, he admitted the checks that bounced. After the prosecution rested its case. The trial court issued a one-page decision finding Ongson guilty of BP 22 that read: on arraignment, accused pleaded not guilty; on pre-trial he admitted the authenticity of his signatures on the checks that bounced. The complainant testified as to the consideration, which is also presumed under the law, unless rebutted by accused, which he failed to do, convincing the court beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt as charged. He was sentenced to six months imprisonment for each of the eight checks, to pay P852,149.72 as damages plus interest at 12% per annum. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence to 30-day imprisonment for each check. Ongson again appealed.
Our Supreme Court ruled the one-page decision violated Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution that requires a decision to state clearly and distinctly the fact and the law on which it is based. The parties to a litigation must be informed on how it was decided, with explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conviction.
The court cannot simply say that judgment is rendered in favor of X and against Y and just leave it at that without any justification. The losing party is entitled to know why he lost, so he may appeal to the higher court. A variance exists as to the amount and date of the two checks. The Information alleged two checks were dated October15 at P3,117.00 and September 28, yet the proofs showed October 17 at P3,117.50 and October 2. The variance in the identity of the checks voided the decision. The identity of the check enters into the first element of the offense under Section 1 of B.P. Blg. 22 – that a person draws or issues a check on account or for value. The discrepancy in the identity of the checks described in the information and presented in court violated his Constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the charge against him. Thus, while Ongson was acquitted of two counts of BP 22, yet he was still held liable for six counts of BP 22 since his lawyer admitted receiving a demand letter. However, under Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 since it was not proven that he was a second-time offender, he will only be required to pay a fine and not to suffer any imprisonment since this will better serve the interest of justice.
