Case Digest (G.R. No. 148557)
Facts:
Felicito Abarquez v. Court of Appeals (Special Former Seventh Division) and The People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 148557, August 07, 2003, First Division, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Felicito Abarquez issued five checks in favor of Fertiphil Corporation, drawn on Republic Planters Bank, Dagupan Branch: Check No. 2956654 (June 5, 1986) — P372,000.00; Check No. 2956655 (June 5, 1986) — P340,000.00; Check No. 2954047 (June 13, 1986) — P27,600.00; Check No. 2956660 (June 27, 1986) — P58,500.00; and Check No. 2956662 (July 1, 1986) — P52,200.00. All five checks were dishonored, the bank returning them on the ground of insufficient funds (DAIF) except that petitioner later contested the reason for dishonor of one check.
After demand by Fertiphil, five criminal informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law) were filed with the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 41. The RTC, after trial on the merits, found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of all five counts, sentenced him to one year imprisonment for each count, ordered indemnification to Fertiphil in the total amount of P844,500.00, and awarded costs.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (Special Former Seventh Division). The CA affirmed the RTC's conviction but, relying on Administrative Circular No. 12‑2000, deleted the imprisonment and imposed a single monetary judgment equivalent to double the total amount of the five checks (P1,700,600.00) as a fine in lieu of imprisonment. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court, contesting (1) conviction in Criminal Case No. D‑8137 on the ground the dishonor was for uncollected deposits (DAUD), (2) convictions in D‑...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court and the Court of Appeals err in convicting petitioner in Criminal Case No. D‑8137 where the check was alleged to have been dishonored for being drawn against uncollected deposits (DAUD) rather than insufficient funds (DAIF)?
- Did the trial court and the Court of Appeals err in convicting petitioner in Criminal Case Nos. D‑8135 and D‑8136 despite evidence of payment after the checks were dishonored?
- Did the trial court and the Court of Appeals err in convicting petitioner in Criminal Case Nos. D‑8176 and D‑8177?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in imposing a fine of P1,700,600.00 (double the total checks) in lieu of imprisonment despite Se...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)