Case Digest (G.R. No. 218236)
Facts:
In Peter Nierras, Petitioner, vs. Hon. Auxencio C. Dacuycuy and Hon. Antonio S. Lopez, decided January 11, 1990 under G.R. Nos. 59568–76, the petitioner, a customer of Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation in Tacloban City, Leyte, purchased oil products and simultaneously issued nine checks in payment. Upon presentation at the Philippine National Bank in Naval, Leyte, these checks were dishonored for a closed account. The Corporation first filed nine informations against Nierras for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law) in Criminal Cases Nos. 3790, 3791, 3792, 3793, 4085, 4122, 4123, 4124, and 4125. After arraignment, Nierras pleaded not guilty and later moved to quash nine additional informations for estafa under Article 315(2-d) of the Revised Penal Code (Criminal Cases Nos. 4379–4387), arguing that these offenses arose from the same issuance of the bouncing checks and thus violated the double jeopardy clause of the 1987 Constitution. On September 17, 1Case Digest (G.R. No. 218236)
Facts:
- Parties and Petition
- Petitioner: Peter Nierras.
- Respondents: Hon. Auxencio C. Dacuycuy and Hon. Antonio S. Lopez (Judge and Presiding Judge, Branch IV, CFI Leyte, Palo, Leyte) and the City Fiscal of Tacloban City, Leyte.
- Underlying Transactions
- Nierras, a customer of Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, purchased oil products and issued nine checks in payment, delivered simultaneously with the products.
- Upon presentation at Philippine National Bank (Naval, Leyte), all nine checks were dishonored because Nierras’s account was already closed.
- Prior Criminal Charges
- Nierras was charged in nine separate Informations (Criminal Cases Nos. 3790–3793, 4085, 4122–4125) for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22—“Bouncing Checks Law”).
- In a second set of nine Informations (Criminal Cases Nos. 4379–4387), Nierras was charged with estafa under Article 315(2-d) of the Revised Penal Code based on the same checks.
- Motion to Quash and Lower Court Resolution
- Upon arraignment in the estafa cases, Nierras pled not guilty and immediately moved to withdraw his plea, filing a motion to quash the estafa Informations on double jeopardy grounds.
- On September 17, 1981, Judge Dacuycuy denied the motion, ruling that BP 22 and Article 315(2-d) create distinct offenses with different elements and penalties, and that prosecution under both laws was permissible.
Issues:
- Double Jeopardy
- Whether charging and prosecuting petitioner for estafa under Article 315(2-d) of the Revised Penal Code, after having charged him for the same acts under BP 22, violates the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
- Proper Remedy
- Whether certiorari is the appropriate remedy to assail the denial of the motion to quash.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)