Case Digest (G.R. No. 125297)
Facts:
Elvira Yu Oh, G.R. No. 125297, June 06, 2003, Supreme Court Second Division, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner entered into a court‑approved compromise with Solid Gold International Traders, Inc. to settle civil suits: she agreed to issue ninety‑nine post‑dated checks of P50,000.00 each, with the 99th check and a lump‑sum balance due November 16, 1994. Petitioner issued ten of those P50,000 checks drawn on her account at Equitable Banking Corporation (EBC), Grace Park, Caloocan. The general manager of Solid Gold, Joaquin Novales III, deposited each of the ten checks on its respective due date with Far East Bank and Trust Company; EBC dishonored them with the reason “Account Closed,” and dishonor slips were generated.
On October 5, 1992 Novales filed ten separate informations (consolidated and raffled to RTC, Branch 99, Quezon City) charging petitioner with ten counts under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law). Petitioner pleaded not guilty; trial followed. On December 22, 1993 the RTC convicted petitioner of ten counts, sentencing her to one year on each count (concurrent application limits per Article 70) and to indemnify Solid Gold P500,000.00 in total. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, by a decision promulgated January 30, 1996 (Penned by Justice Lourdes K. Tayao‑Jaguros of the Ninth Division), affirmed the RTC; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals was denied on May 30, 1996.
Petitioner sought relief before the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, raising primarily: (1) that Republic Act No. 7691 expanding lower‑court jurisdiction should apply retroactively pursuant to Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, divesting the RTC of jurisdiction; (2) that no notice of dishonor was shown to have been ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to give retroactive application to R.A. No. 7691 in view of Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, thereby affecting jurisdiction.
- Whether a notice of dishonor to the drawer was required and, if so, whether the prosecution proved such notice to petitioner.
- Whether B.P. Blg. 22 was erroneously construed to cover post‑dated checks and dishonors f...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)