PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. REGINO VERIDIANO II, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ZAMBALES AND OLONGAPO CITY, BRANCH I, AND BENITO GO BIO…

People versus Veridiano

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the People of the Philippines against Judge Regino Veridiano the Second, presiding judge of the Court of First Instance of Zambales and Olongapo City, Branch One, and against the private respondent Benito Go Bio, Junior. The People ask the Supreme Court to reverse the trial judge's dismissal of a criminal charge for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law. The case matters because it fixes the rule on when a penal statute takes effect: publication means actual release to the public, not the printed date on the page, and no one may be punished for an act done before the law penalizing it had truly been made known.

Procedural History

Benito Go Bio, Junior was charged with violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 in the Court of First Instance of Zambales, presided over by the respondent judge. Before arraignment, the accused filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that the facts alleged did not charge an offense, because at the time of the alleged act in May 1979 the law had not yet taken effect. The prosecution opposed the motion, arguing that the offense was committed on the date the check was dishonored, which was in September 1979. The respondent judge granted the motion to quash and cancelled the accused's bail bond in his order of August 23, 1982. The People then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Benito Go Bio, Junior was accused of issuing, around the second week of May 1979 in Olongapo City, a Bank of the Philippine Islands check for 200,000 pesos in favor of Filipinas Tan, knowing that he had no sufficient funds in the bank. The information alleged that the check was dishonored for insufficiency of funds and that the accused failed to redeem it or pay the amount despite repeated demands.

Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 was printed in the Official Gazette issue dated April 9, 1979. The People argued that fifteen days from that printed date fell on April 24, 1979, before the check was issued. The accused countered that the Gazette was actually released for circulation only on June 14, 1979, and that the check was issued in May 1979, before the law was released.

The copy editor of the Official Gazette at the Government Printing Office certified that the April 9, 1979 issue was officially released for circulation on June 14, 1979. The Solicitor General admitted this certification. The trial judge, relying on the view that the date of the drawing and issuance of the check is the date to reckon with, dismissed the case.

Issues

• Whether or not Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 may be applied to a check drawn, made, and issued in May 1979, when the law was actually released for circulation only on June 14, 1979.
• Whether or not the offense under the Bouncing Checks Law is committed on the date the check is dishonored rather than on the date it is made, drawn, and issued.

Applicable Provisions

The effectivity clause of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 provides:

This Act shall take effect fifteen days after publication in the Official Gazette.

The Court reads the word publication in its ordinary sense, as making the law known to the people in general, so that the fifteen days run from actual release, not from the printed date of issue.

Section 1 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 provides:

SECTION 1. Checks without sufficient funds. - Any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds shall be punished.

This shows that the act penalized is the making or drawing and issuance of the check, which is why the date of issue, not the date of dishonor, controls.

Section 2 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 provides:

SECTION 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. - The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds.

This likewise anchors the offense on the act of making, drawing, and issuing the check.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court upheld the dismissal. The certification showed that the April 9, 1979 issue of the Official Gazette was officially released for circulation only on June 14, 1979. The Court held that the penal statute was made public on June 14, 1979, and that before the public may be bound by its contents, especially its penal provisions, the law must be published and the people officially informed. If a statute had not been published before its violation, then in the eyes of the law there was no such law to be violated. The Court added that if the legislature had intended the printed date of issue to be the point of reference, it could have said so in the special effectivity clause. Following that clause, the law became effective only on June 29, 1979, and in May 1979 there was no law to be violated.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the argument that the offense was committed on the date of dishonor. The law penalizes the act of making or drawing and issuance of a bouncing check, and not only the fact of its dishonor. The title of the law itself states:

AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR DRAWING AND ISSUANCE OF A CHECK WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR CREDIT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Since the check was issued in May 1979, before the law took effect, the accused could not be held liable under it.

Doctrine

First, a penal statute takes effect only upon actual publication, meaning actual release to the public for circulation, and not from the printed date of issue of the Official Gazette. The fifteen days in the effectivity clause run from that actual release.

Second, no person may be punished for an act done before the law penalizing it had been published and made known, for until then there was no law to violate.

Third, under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, the offense is committed on the date the check is made, drawn, and issued, not on the date it is dishonored, because the law penalizes the act of making or drawing and issuance of a bouncing check.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the respondent judge dismissing the criminal action against Benito Go Bio, Junior, with no costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: publication means actual release for circulation, and no one can violate a penal law that the public has not yet received. Examiners use this case on the effectivity of penal statutes and on the date of the offense under the Bouncing Checks Law.