BATAS

PAMBANSA
BILANG 22

SCOPE
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 in
or credit with the drawee
bank for the payment of
such check in full upon
its 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

PENALTY
Shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than thirty
days but not more than one (1) year or by a fine of not less
than but not more than double the amount of the check
which fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand
Pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion
of the court.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who,
having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank
when he makes or draws and issues a check, shall fail to
keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full
amount of the check if presented within a period of ninety
(90) days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason
it is dishonored by the drawee bank.
Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or
entity, the person or persons who actually signed the check
in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act.
In its decision in Eduardo Vaca, v. Court of Appeals (G.R.
No. 131714, 16 November 1998; 298 SCRA 656, 664) the
Supreme Court (Second Division) per Mr. Justice V.
Mendoza, modified the sentence imposed for violation
of B.P. Blg. 22 by deleting the penalty of imprisonment and
imposing only the penalty of fine in an amount double the
amount of the check. In justification thereof, the Court said:
Petitioners are first-time offenders. They are Filipino
entrepreneurs who presumably contribute to the national
economy. Apparently, they brought this appeal, believing in
all good faith, although mistakenly that they had not
committed a violation of B.P. Blg. 22.

TRUST RECEIPT LAW

The failure
of
an
entrustee to turn over
the proceeds of the sale
of
the
goods,
documents
or
instruments covered by
a trust receipt to the
extent of the amount
owing to the entruster or
as appears in the trust
receipt or to return said
goods, documents or
instruments if they were
not sold or disposed of
in accordance with the
terms of the trust
receipt.

Shall constitute the crime of estafa, punishable under the

provisions of Article Three hundred and fifteen (315),
paragraph one (b)
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence,
namely:
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the
prejudice
of another, money, goods, or any other
personal property received by the offender in trust
or on commission, or for administration, or under
any other obligation involving the duty to make
delivery of or to return the same, even though such
obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a
bond; or by denying having received such money,
goods, or other property of Act Numbered Three
thousand eight hundred and fifteen, as amended,
otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code.

1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum

period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount
of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed
22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter sum,
the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its
maximum period, adding one year for each additional
10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed
shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in
connection with the accessory penalties which may be
imposed under the provisions of this Code, the penalty shall
be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case
may be.

The Promulgation of Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 resulted in the
modification of the penalties imposed to the offenders of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 as decided by the
Supreme Court in the case of Eduardo Vaca v. Court of Appeals wherein penalty of imprisonment was
deleted and imposing only the penalty of fine in an amount double the amount of the check.
In justification thereof, the Court said: Petitioners are first-time offenders and are Filipino
entrepreneurs who presumably contribute to the national economy.
True enough, an entrepreneur is important for the economic development of a country. The
development of a country will depend upon his expertise and ability as well as his determination to deliver
necessary goods and services needed by the citizens of his country.
The denial of the modification of the sentence imposed for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 by deleting the
penalty of imprisonment and imposing only the penalty of fine in an amount double the amount of the
check for first time offenders as against the first time offenders of Trust Receipt Law is a disturbing
discrepancy, knowing that generally both law mostly governs transactions of business enterprise in the
country.
Both offenders of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 and the Trust Receipt Law are mostly business
entrepreneurs or business persons who are contributors in the economic development in the country and
or involves fiduciary relationship between persons and have similar nature as to its effects.