G.R. No. 159418-19 - De Joya vs. Jail Warden of Batangas City

The petitioner, Norma de Joya, was charged with two separate violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. Blg. 22) before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Batangas City.

Criminal Case No. 25484 alleged that on or about September 28, 1994, Norma de Joya knowingly issued a postdated check (No. 040297) for ₱150,000.00 to Flor Catapang de Tenorio without sufficient funds or credit at Solid Bank, Batangas City. The check was dishonored due to the account being closed. Despite demand and notice, petitioner failed to make good the check.
Criminal Case No. 25773 alleged that on or about October 17, 1994, Norma de Joya knowingly issued a postdated check (No. 038111) for ₱225,000.00 to Resurreccion T. Castillo without sufficient funds or credit at Security Bank and Trust Company, Batangas City. The check was dishonored due to the account being closed. Despite demand and notice, petitioner refused to pay the obligation.

The petitioner pleaded not guilty when arraigned. During trial, she fled and did not present any evidence in her defense in both cases.
On December 14, 1995, the court convicted Norma de Joya for Criminal Case No. 25484 in absentia, sentencing her to one year imprisonment and indemnity of ₱150,000.00 to Flor Catapang de Tenorio.
On March 21, 1997, the court convicted her similarly for Criminal Case No. 25773 in absentia, imposing one year imprisonment and damages of ₱225,000.00 to Resurreccion T. Castillo.
No appeal was filed, and the judgments became final and executory.
The petitioner evaded arrest for five years until December 3, 2002, when she was arrested while applying for an NBI clearance and detained at Batangas City Jail.
On July 28, 2003, she filed a motion before the trial court to apply Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 retroactively, which prescribes imposition of fines instead of imprisonment for violations of B.P. Blg. 22, and to order her release. The prosecution opposed.
The trial court denied the motion on August 15, 2003, ruling:

The judgments were final and could no longer be modified.
The Administrative Circular applies prospectively only.
The Circular did not amend the substantive law but only guides penalty imposition.

Petitioner then filed the present petition for writ of habeas corpus before the Supreme Court, claiming her detention was illegal because imprisonment is no longer a penalty for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 under the Supreme Court Circular.

Whether the petitioner’s detention pursuant to final convictions for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is illegal.
Whether Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, as modified by Circular No. 13-2001, abolished imprisonment as a penalty for violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
Whether the Supreme Court Circulars apply retroactively to modify final judgments imposing imprisonment for B.P. Blg. 22 violations.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to release on the basis of the said Supreme Court Circulars and Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code concerning retroactive application of penal laws.