Gravamen of the offense

Under the Bouncing Checks Law (Section 1, BP 22), a person found criminally liable for issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment may be penalized with (1) imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not more than one year; or (2) a fine of not less or more than double the amount of the check, and shall in no case exceed P200,000; or (3) both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. But is this penalty not in violation of the Constitution (Section 20, Article III) which prohibits imprisonment as a punishment for not paying a debt. This is one of the issues raised and clarified once more in this case of Lita.

Lita obtained a cash loan from a financing company (MFC). As partial payment for said loan, she issued six checks drawn against her account in a bank (PBB) with a uniform face value of P6,667.00 each.

Upon maturity of the checks, MFC presented them to the PBB for payment. However all the checks were dishonored on the ground that they were drawn against a closed account. So MFC sent a demand letter to Lita for payment of the face value of the dishonored checks. But Lita refused to heed the demand. Hence she was indicted for six counts of violation of the Bouncing Checks law.

After hearing, the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) found Lita criminally and civilly liable for the issuance of the six rubber checks and was meted a penalty of fine amounting to P80,000 for each count with subsidiary imprisonment. She was likewise ordered to indemnify MFC the total value of the checks amounting toP40,002.00 plus 12% annual legal interest.

Lita questioned this decision. She contended that the fine of P80,000 imposed for each count is out of the range of the penalty prescribed by Section 1 of BP 22 wherein the fine should be only double the amount of the face value (P6,667) of each dishonored check or P13,334. She further claimed that the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment in case she is unable to pay the fine contravenes Section 20, Article III of the Constitution which proscribes imprisonment as a punishment for not paying a debt. Was Lita correct?

On the first issue, Lita is correct. Under Section 1 of BP 22 the fine to be imposed should be not less or more than double the amount of the check which fine shall in no case exceed P200,000. Here the face value of each of the six checks that bounced is P6,667. So the maximum penalty of fine that can be imposed on Lita for each count is only P13,344 or the amount double the face value of each check. But she should also indemnify MFC the sum of P40,002 which is the total amount of the six checks plus six percent interest per annum until fully paid.

On the second issue Lita is not correct. 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 presentation for payment. It is not the non-payment of an obligation that the law punishes. The law is not intended or designed to coerce the 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. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property but an offense against public order. So the enactment of BP 22 is a valid exercise of police power and is not repugnant to the constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for debt (Sumbilla vs Matrix Finance Corporation, G.R. 197582, June 29, 2015).

* * *

Email: [email protected].