Case Digest (G.R. No. 59568-76)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 59568-76)
Facts:
Peter Nierras v. Hon. Auxencio C. Dacuycuy and Hon. Antonio S. Lopez, G.R. Nos. 59568-76, January 11, 1990, the Supreme Court En Banc, Paras, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Peter Nierras sought certiorari with preliminary injunction to annul the respondent trial judge's resolution that denied his motion to quash nine informations for estafa; the respondents are Judge Auxencio C. Dacuycuy (presiding judge, Branch IV, Court of First Instance of Leyte, Palo, Leyte) and the City Fiscal of Tacloban City, Antonio S. Lopez. Chief Justice Fernan took no part in the decision.
The factual background is that petitioner, a customer of Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, purchased oil products and simultaneously issued nine checks in payment. When presented to the Philippine National Bank at Naval, Leyte, the checks were dishonored because petitioner's account had been closed. After repeated demands by Pilipinas Shell for payment or deposits, the payee filed criminal informations.
Two distinct sets of criminal cases were instituted in the Court of First Instance. The earlier set charged petitioner with violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law) in Criminal Cases Nos. 3790, 3791, 3792, 3793, 4085, 4122, 4123, 4124, and 4125. Subsequently, nine separate informations were filed charging petitioner with estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Cases Nos. 4379–4387. In both sets of cases petitioner pleaded not guilty at arraignment.
Immediately after entering not guilty pleas in the estafa cases, petitioner moved in open court to withdraw his plea and filed motions to quash those informations on the ground of double jeopardy, contending that the same acts were already the subject of the BP 22 prosecutions. On September 17, 1981 the trial judge, Judge Dacuycuy, denied the motions to quash in a reasoned resolution, distinguishing the elements of estafa under Article 315(2)(d) from the elements of BP 22 and citing precedent (including People v. Sabio and People v. Veridiano) and the legislative history of BP 22 to show Congress contemplated separate liabilities.
Petitioner then filed the present petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court seeking annulment of the trial court's denial of his motions to quash on double jeopardy grounds. The petition invoked judicial review under Rule 65 certiorari-type relief (styled in the opinion as a petition for certiorari). The Supreme Court resolved the matter En Banc.
Issues:
- Was certiorari the proper remedy to challenge the trial court's denial of petitioner’s motion to quash?
- Does the subsequent filing of estafa informations under Article 315(2)(d) after prosecutions under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 for the same bounced checks violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)