People v Veridiano Digest

G.R. L-62243, October 12, 1984

Effectivity of laws

At issue in this case is the applicability of BP 22 which was circulated a month after private respondent issued the dishonored check.

Facts:

1.             On or about the 2nd week of May 1979, private respondent Benito Go Bio Jr. issued a check amounting to P200, 000 to one Filipinas Tan. Said check was subsequently dishonored and despite repeated demands, the respondent failed to make the necessary payment. Hence, the filing of charges against him for violation of B.P. 22 or the Bouncing Check law.

2.             Go Bio filed a Motion to Quash alleging that the information did not charge an offence on ground that BP 22 has not yet taken effect when the offense was committed on May 1979. Said law took into effect on June 29, 1979. The prosecution opposed the motion and contended that the date of the dishonor of the check -- September 26, 1979, is the date of the commission of the offense, hence BP 22 is applicable.

3.             The respondent judge granted Go Bio's motion and dismissed the criminal action hence, this petition. Petitioner contends that BP 22 was published in the Official Gazette on April 4, 1979, and hence became effective 15 days thereafter or on April 24, 1979. PR contends however that said publication was only released on June 14, 1979 but since the questioned check was issued about the second week of May 1979, then he could not have violated BP 22 because it was not yet released for circulation at the time.

Issue: W/N BP 22 was already in effect when the offense was committed

NO. 

The penal statute in question was circulated only on June 14, 1979 and not on its printed date of April 9, 1979. Publication of the law is necessary so that the public can be apprised of the contents of a penal statute before it can be bound by it. 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. Hence, the accused could not have committed the alleged crime. In effect, when the alleged offense was committed there was still no law penalizing it. If BP 22 intended to make the printed date of issue of the Official Gazette as the point of reference in the determination of its the effectivity, it could have provided a special effectivity provision. Finally, the term "publication" in BP 22 must be given the ordinary accepted meaning, to make known to the people in general.