De Joya vs. Jail Warden of Batangas City

Factual Background

The petitioner was separately charged under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 with issuing postdated checks knowing she lacked funds or credit in the drawee banks. In Criminal Case No. 25484 she was accused of issuing Solid Bank Check No. 040297 dated September 28, 1994, in the amount of P150,000 payable to Flor Catapang de Tenorio which the bank dishonored for "account closed." In Criminal Case No. 25773 she was accused of issuing Security Bank Check No. 038111 dated October 17, 1994, in the amount of P225,000 payable to Resurreccion T. Castillo which likewise was dishonored for "account closed."

Trial Court Proceedings and Convictions

When arraigned in both cases, the petitioner pleaded not guilty. Trial proceeded but the petitioner jumped bail and did not present evidence in her defense. The trial court rendered judgment in absentia in Criminal Case No. 25484 on December 14, 1995, convicting her and sentencing her to one year imprisonment and indemnity of P150,000. The trial court rendered judgment in absentia in Criminal Case No. 25773 on March 21, 1997, convicting her and sentencing her to one year imprisonment and damages of P225,000. No appeals were filed and the judgments became final and executory.

Custody, Motion to Apply Circulars, and Lower Court Ruling

After remaining at large for about five years, the petitioner was arrested while applying for an NBI clearance and was detained at the Batangas City Jail on December 3, 2002. On July 28, 2003, she filed an urgent motion with the Municipal Trial Court seeking application of SC Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 retroactively pursuant to Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code and an order for her release. The public prosecutor opposed. By Order dated August 15, 2003, the trial court denied the motion on three grounds: (a) the convictions had long been final and executory and could not be amended to change the penalties; (b) the Administrative Circular should be applied prospectively only; and (c) the Administrative Circular did not amend Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, a substantive law, but merely advocated uniform imposition of fines.

Petitioner's Contentions

The petitioner argued that SC Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 effectively deleted imprisonment as a penalty for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and allowed only fines. She maintained that the trial court was mandated to apply the Circular retroactively under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code and relied on the Court's earlier ruling in United States v. Pacrose (24 Phil. 35) to claim benefit from the reduction of penalty. She prayed that her detention be declared illegal and that she be released.

Government's Contentions

The Office of the Solicitor General opposed the petition. It asserted that the convictions had long attained finality and could no longer be modified. The OSG also contended that Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, as modified by Administrative Circular No. 13-2001, did not delete imprisonment as an alternative penalty under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. The OSG cited this Court's ruling in Abarquez v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 148557, August 7, 2003) in support.

Issue Presented

The principal issue was whether the petitioner, already convicted and detained pursuant to final judgments for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that SC Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 should be applied retroactively to eliminate imprisonment as a penalty and thereby render her detention illegal.

Applicable Rule on Habeas Corpus

The Court noted Section 4, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, which bars the writ of habeas corpus where the person is in custody under process issued by a court or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record, provided the court had jurisdiction to render the judgment. The rule also states that the writ shall not authorize the discharge of a person suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment. Applying that provision, the Court observed that the petitioner was detained pursuant to final judgments of the Municipal Trial Court and therefore was not entitled to the writ.

Construction and Effect of the Administrative Circulars

The Court examined SC Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 and its clarification in SC Administrative Circular No. 13-2001 and concluded that the Circular is not a penal law and does not amend Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. The Court reiterated its prior exposition that the Circular establishes a rule of preference in the application of penalties for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. The Circular urges judges, in appropriate cases showing good faith or clear mistake of fact without negligence, to prefer the imposition of a fine alone, but it does not remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty nor defeat congressional intent. The determination whether circumstances warrant imposition of a fine alone rests with the trial judge exercising sound discretion.

Substance of B.P. Blg. 22 and Penological Considerations

The Court restated Section 1 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, which prescribes as alternative penalties imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one year, a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check (with a P200,000 cap), or both, at the court's discretion. The Court discussed the law's purpose to prohibit the circulation of worthless checks as an offense against public order and noted the judiciary's obligation to consider both primary and secondary elements of punishment, including reformation and social protection, in determining appropriate penalties.

Application to the Present Case and Additional Considerations

Even if SC Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 were applied retroactively, the Court found that the petition still failed on the merits. The petitioner did not present any evidence at trial, the judgments became final due to failure to appeal, and t