People vs. Veridiano II

The Court held that a penal statute takes effect only upon its actual publication and release for circulation, not on the date printed on the Official Gazette, where the law's special effectivity clause specifies it shall take effect fifteen days after publication. Accordingly, an act performed before such actual publication cannot be penalized under the statute.

Private respondent Benito Go Bio, Jr. was charged with violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 for issuing a check for P200,000.00 in May 1979, which was subsequently dishonored. The information alleged the offense occurred during the second week of May 1979. Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 was published in the Official Gazette issue dated April 9, 1979, but was certified to have been actually released for circulation only on June 14, 1979.

• The information charged that Benito Go Bio, Jr. issued Bank of Philippine Island Check No. D-357726 for P200,000.00 during the second week of May 1979, knowing he had insufficient funds.
• Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 was published in the Official Gazette with a cover date of April 9, 1979.
• A certification from the Copy Editor of the Official Gazette Section stated that the April 9, 1979 issue was officially released for circulation on June 14, 1979.
• The check was presented for encashment and dishonored on September 26, 1979.
• Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 contains a special effectivity clause stating it "shall take effect fifteen days after publication in the Official Gazette."

• Petitioner (the People) argued that Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 took effect on April 24, 1979, fifteen days after its publication date of April 9, 1979, as printed on the Gazette.
• Petitioner contended that the date of the offense should be the date of the check's dishonor (September 26, 1979), which was after the law's effectivity.
• Petitioner asserted that pursuant to Section 11 of the Revised Administrative Code, the Official Gazette is conclusively presumed published on the date indicated as its date of issue.

• Respondent Go Bio, Jr. argued that the act penalized by Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 is the making, drawing, and issuance of a check without sufficient funds, not merely its dishonor.
• He maintained that the law was not yet in effect when he issued the check in May 1979, as the Gazette issue containing it was not actually released for circulation until June 14, 1979.
• He contended that the law could not be given retroactive effect to penalize an act committed prior to its effectivity.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 was already in effect at the time the check was issued in May 1979.
  • Whether the date of the offense is the date of the check's issuance or the date of its dishonor.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive: The Court affirmed the dismissal. It ruled that the law's effectivity must be reckoned from its actual publication (release for circulation) on June 14, 1979, not the printed date of April 9, 1979. Because the act penalized—the making and issuance of the check—occurred in May 1979, before the law took effect on June 29, 1979 (15 days after June 14), no crime under the statute was committed. The Court emphasized that the law penalizes the act of issuance itself, not the subsequent dishonor.

• Publication Before Effectivity — A statute, especially a penal one, must be published and the people officially informed of its contents before it can take effect and bind the public. The purpose of publication is to accord due process by making the law known. In this case, the Court applied the doctrine by holding that actual release for circulation constitutes the operative act of publication for determining effectivity, pursuant to the law's own special provision.

• "Before the public may be bound by its contents especially its penal provisions, the law must be published and the people officially informed of its contents and/or its penalties. For, 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 and, consequently, the accused could not have committed the alleged crime." — This passage underscores the due process foundation of the publication requirement.
• "When private respondent Go Bio, Jr. committed the act, complained of in the Information as criminal, in May 1979, there was then no law penalizing such act." — This sentence directly applies the factual timeline to the legal principle, leading to the dismissal.

• Pesigan vs. Angeles, 129 SCRA 174 — Cited in Justice Teehankee's concurrence for the principle that actual publication of a penal law is indispensable for its effectivity.

• Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, Title and Sections 1 & 2 — The Court examined the law's title and operative provisions to determine that the penalized act is the "making or drawing and issuance" of a check, not its dishonor.
• Section 11, Revised Administrative Code — Petitioner invoked this provision regarding the conclusive presumption of the Gazette's publication date, but the Court's ruling, based on the law's special effectivity clause and proof of actual release, effectively superseded this general rule for the specific statute.
• Article 315, Revised Penal Code (Estafa) — Mentioned in the trial court's order as a potential alternative charge, but not the basis for the Supreme Court's ruling.

• Justice Teehankee (Acting C.J.) — Concurred on the specific ground that actual publication of a penal law is indispensable for its effectivity, citing Pesigan vs. Angeles. This concurrence reinforces the majority's reliance on actual release over the printed date.