Case Digest (G.R. No. 100776)
Facts:
Albino S. Co. v. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 100776, October 28, 1993, Supreme Court Second Division, Narvasa, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Albino S. Co. (hereafter "Co") was prosecuted for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the "Bouncing Checks Law") after he delivered on September 1, 1983 a postdated check for P361,528.00 as his agreed share of salvage and refloating expenses for a sunken vessel; the check was deposited on January 3, 1984 and dishonored January 5, 1984 with the bank's brief notation "CLOSED ACCOUNT."The salvaging firm filed a criminal complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City. The RTC convicted Co of violating B.P. Blg. 22, sentenced him to sixty days' imprisonment and ordered indemnification of the salvage company for P361,528.00. Co appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed his conviction. The CA relied in part on this Court's later ruling in Que v. People, 154 SCRA 160 (1987) — which held that a check issued merely to guarantee an obligation falls within BP Blg. 22 — and on precedent that treats such judicial constructions as part of the law.
Co sought review by this Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 45. Initially the Court dismissed the petition by resolution dated September 9, 1991; after a motion for reconsideration and comments by the Office of the Solicitor General, the Court reinstated the appeal and proceeded to decide the merits. Co's defense below and on appeal was that at the time he issued the check (1983) the Ministry of Justice had officially interpreted that issuance of a check as a guarantee was not punishable (Ministry Circular No. 4, Dec. 15, 1981), and that the later Que doctrine (promulgate...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should the Court's ruling in Que v. People (Sept. 21, 1987), that checks issued as guarantees are covered by B.P. Blg. 22, be given retroactive effect so as to sustain petitioner’s conviction for a check issued on September 1, 1983?
- Can petitioner legitimately rely on the Ministry of Justice circular (Circular No. 4, Dec. 15, 1981) — an official administrative interpretation that such guaranteed checks were not punishable — as a defense negating criminal l...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)