Case Digest (G.R. No. 197582)
Facts:
Julie S. Sumbilla, G.R. No. 197582, June 29, 2015, Supreme Court Third Division, Villarama, Jr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Sumbilla obtained a cash loan from Matrix Finance Corporation and, as partial payment, issued six Philippine Business Bank checks (Nos. 0032863–0032868), each with a face value of ₱6,667.00. The checks were presented for payment but were dishonored because they were drawn against a closed account. After demand went unheeded, respondent filed criminal complaints for six counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22).The cases were tried in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Makati City, Branch 67. In a Decision dated January 14, 2009, the MeTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of six counts of BP 22 and sentenced her, for each count, to pay a fine of ₱80,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of nonpayment; civil indemnity was fixed at the total face amount of ₱40,002.00 plus 12% annual interest from September 21, 2002. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration before the MeTC, which was denied as a pleading barred under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure; the court also noted the motion did not suspend the period to perfect an appeal. Her subsequently filed Notice of Appeal was denied as filed beyond the 15-day period.
Petitioner sought relief by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati, Branch 61, which dismissed the petition and denied reconsideration. She then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 42; the CA held the proper remedy was an ordinary appeal under Section 2(a), Rule 41, and denied relief. After her motion for extension of time and a granted extension, peti...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the penalty imposed in a final and executory MeTC Decision be modified by the Supreme Court despite the judgment's finality?
- Was the fine of ₱80,000.00 per count beyond the maximum penalty authorized by Section 1 of BP 22?
- Was the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment for nonpayment of the fine barred by Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 or by the constitutional prohibi...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)