De Joya v. Jail Warden G.R. Nos. 159418-19 WON Norma First. SC Admin. Circular No.

WON Norma First. SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 is not a penal law; hence, Article 22 of the Revised Penal
December 10, 2003 Accused Norma De Joya should be Code is not applicable. The circular applies only to those cases pending as of the date of its
Justice Callejo, Sr. Case Charged separately with violations of B.P. Blg. 22 penalized despite effectivity and not to cases already terminated by final judgment.
Court MTC in Batangas City deletion of the
Date of crime September 28, 1994; October 17, 1994 penalty of
Place of crime Batangas City imprisonment for Second. As explained by the Court in SC Admin. Circular No. 13-2001, SC Admin. Circular No.
BP 22 in the 12-2000 merely lays down a rule of preference in the application of the penalties for violation of
What happened? Administrative B.P. Blg. 22. It does not amend B.P. Blg. 22, nor defeat the legislative intent behind the law. SC
Norma issued a check without sufficient funds amounting Php 150, 000 to Flor Catapang de Tenorio with the Solid Bank and issued another Circular Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 merely urges the courts to take into account not only the purpose of
amounting Php 225, 000 to Resurreccion T. Castillo with the Security Bank and Trust company. Norma was arraigned and jumped bail. the law but also the circumstances of the accused – whether he acted in good faith or on a clear
mistake of fact without taint of negligence – and such other circumstance which the trial court or
the appellate court believes relevant to the penalty to be imposed.
RTC Norma is guilty of the crime of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
Penalty: imprisonment of one year

Norma is guilty beyond reasonable doubt Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 does not remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty for
violations of B.P. Blg. 22;
Penalty: imprisonment of one year

Five years later, Norma was arrested pursuant to Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12-2000. Norma claims that she has been illegal detained.
The Judges concerned may, in the exercise of sound discretion, and taking into consideration
the peculiar circumstances of each case, determine whether the imposition of a fine alone would
best serve the interests of justice or whether forbearing to impose imprisonment would
depreciate the seriousness of the offense, work violence on the social order, or otherwise be
contrary to the imperatives of justice;

Should only a fine be imposed and the accused be unable to pay the fine, there is no legal
obstacle to the application of the Revised Penal Code provisions on subsidiary imprisonment

In providing for alternative penalties in B.P. Blg. 22, Congress took into account the principal
objectives of the law, namely, the prohibition on the making of worthless checks and putting them
in circulation. The practice is prohibited by law because of its deleterious effects on public
interest. The effects of the increase of worthless checks transcend the private interest of the
parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interest of the community at large.
The mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury to the public.
The harmful practice of putting valueless commercial papers in circulation multiplied a thousand-
fold can very well pollute the channels of trade and commerce, injure the banking system and
eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public interest. The law punishes the act not as an
offense against property but an offense against public order.

Philippine penal law looks at the convict as a member of society. Among the important factors to
be considered in determining the penalty to be imposed on him are (1) his relationship towards
his dependents, family and their relationship with him; and (2) his relationship towards society at
large and the State. The State is concerned not only in the imperative necessity of protecting the
social organization against the criminal acts of destructive individuals but also in redeeming the
individual for economic usefulness and other social ends.15 The purpose of penalties is to secure
justice.

The court has to consider not only the primary elements of punishment, namely, the moral
responsibility of the convict, the relation of the convict to the private complainant, the intention of
the convict, the temptation to the act or the excuse for the crime - was it done by a rich man in
the insolence of his wealth or by a poor man in the extremity of his need?