Case Summary (G.R. No. 159418-19)
Petitioner’s Claim and Relief Sought
The petitioner contends her detention is illegal because she should benefit from Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 (as clarified by Admin. Circular No. 13-2001) which, she argues, effectively removes imprisonment as an appropriate penalty for certain violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and therefore entitles her to retroactive application of the circular and immediate release.
Respondents’ Position
The Office of the Solicitor General (opposing) maintains that (1) the convictions against the petitioner are final and executory and therefore no longer modifiable, and (2) Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 (as modified by No. 13-2001) did not delete imprisonment as an alternative penalty under B.P. Blg. 22.
Key Dates and Procedural Milestones
Offenses alleged: September 28, 1994 and October 17, 1994 (checks postdated October 28 and October 24, 1994 respectively). Trial court decisions promulgated in absentia: December 14, 1995 (Criminal Case No. 25484) and March 21, 1997 (Criminal Case No. 25773). Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 issued November 21, 2000; clarified by Admin. Circular No. 13-2001. Petitioner arrested and detained December 3, 2002; filed motion to apply circular retroactively July 28, 2003; trial court denied motion August 15, 2003. The Supreme Court decision resolving the habeas petition issued in 2003; applicable constitution: the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Applicable Law and Authorities Relied Upon
Constitutional basis: 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable given the decision date). Controlling procedural rule: Rule 102, Section 4 of the Rules of Court (when writ of habeas corpus not allowed). Substantive law: Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, Section 1 (penalties for issuance of checks without sufficient funds). Relevant penal provisions: Article 22, Revised Penal Code (reduction of penalties) referenced by petitioner. Administrative guidance: Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 and No. 13-2001. Judicial authorities cited in the decision include Vaca v. Court of Appeals, Lim v. People, Abarquez v. Court of Appeals, Ordonez v. Vinarao, People v. Simon, and United States v. Pacrose — these are used to interpret the scope and effect of the circular and related principles.
Substance of the Criminal Charges
Two separate Informations under B.P. Blg. 22 alleged that petitioner knowingly issued checks without sufficient funds or credit: (1) Solid Bank Check No. 040297, postdated October 28, 1994, amount P150,000.00 payable to Flor Catapang de Tenorio; and (2) Security Bank Check No. 038111, postdated October 24, 1994, amount P225,000.00 payable to Resurreccion T. Castillo. Both checks were allegedly dishonored with the notation “account closed,” notices of dishonor and demands were allegedly made, and the petitioner allegedly failed to make good the checks.
Trial and Convictions — Procedural History
The petitioner pleaded not guilty and was represented by counsel, but she jumped bail during trial and did not present any defense evidence. The Municipal Trial Court rendered judgments in absentia: Criminal Case No. 25484 (conviction and one-year imprisonment plus indemnity of P150,000) and Criminal Case No. 25773 (conviction and one-year imprisonment plus damages of P225,000). No appeals were filed; the judgments became final and executory. The petitioner remained at large for approximately five years before arrest and detention at Batangas City Jail.
Trial Court’s Denial of Motion to Apply the Administrative Circular Retroactively
After arrest, the petitioner moved before the trial court to apply SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 retroactively under Article 22, R.P.C., seeking release. The trial court denied the motion on three grounds: (a) the judgments were final and could no longer be modified; (b) the circular should be applied only prospectively; and (c) the circular does not amend B.P. Blg. 22 but only encourages uniform imposition of fines where appropriate.
Legal Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
Primary issues considered: (1) whether the petitioner, detained pursuant to final judgments, is entitled to habeas corpus relief; and (2) whether SC Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 (as modified by No. 13-2001) effectively removes imprisonment as a penalty under B.P. Blg. 22 and thus must be applied retroactively (or otherwise) to benefit the petitioner.
Supreme Court’s Analysis — Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
The Court applied Section 4, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court: habeas corpus shall not be allowed if the person is in custody under process issued by a court or by virtue of a judgment of a court of record, provided the issuing court had jurisdiction. The Court found that the petitioner was detained pursuant to final judgments of the Municipal Trial Court, which had jurisdiction to render those judgments; therefore, habeas corpus is not the proper remedy and cannot be granted to secure her release from lawful custody under a valid judgment.
Supreme Court’s Analysis — Nature and Effect of Administrative Circular No. 12-2000
The Court held that Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 is not a penal law and therefore Article 22, Revised Penal Code (which governs reduction of penalties by subsequent penal legislation) does not apply to the circular. The circular does not amend B.P. Blg. 22; rather, it establishes a rule of preference in the application of alternative penalties already provided by statute. Specifically, the circular urges that where the circumstances (e.g., good faith, clear mistake of fact without negligence) point toward leniency, the imposition of a fine alone should be considered the more appropriate penalty, but it does not remove imprisonment as an available penalty. The circular applies to cases pending as of its effectivity and not to cases already terminated by final judgment.
Discretion of Trial Courts under B.P. Blg. 22 and the Administrative Guidance
B.P. Blg. 22 explicitly prescribes alternative penalties — imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not m
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 159418-19)
Nature of the Petition
- Petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Norma de Joya praying for her release from the Batangas City Jail on the claim that her detention was illegal.
- The petition challenges detention pursuant to final convictions for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. Blg. 22).
- The petition raised the argument that Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 (as modified by Administrative Circular No. 13-2001) deleted or curtailed the imprisonment penalty for B.P. Blg. 22 and thus should apply retroactively under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code.
Antecedent Facts
- The petitioner was charged separately with violations of B.P. Blg. 22 before the Municipal Trial Court In Cities in Batangas City.
- The petitioner was arraigned in both cases and, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty.
- While trial was ongoing, the petitioner jumped bail and remained at large for approximately five years.
- No evidence was adduced in her defense in either of the two cases because of her failure to appear during trial.
- The petitioner was finally arrested on December 3, 2002 while applying for an NBI clearance and was detained at the Batangas City Jail.
Informations — Criminal Case No. 25484 (Flor Catapang de Tenorio)
- Accusatory portion as charged:
- Date alleged: on or about September 28, 1994 at Batangas City.
- Charged act: wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously draw, make and issue to Flor Catapang de Tenorio Solid Bank Check No. 040297 postdated to October 28, 1994.
- Amount: ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND (P150,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency.
- Allegation of lack of funds/credit with Solid Bank, Batangas Branch, and that the check was dishonored by the drawee bank on the ground "account closed" when presented for full payment within 90 days of the date of the check.
- Allegation that despite notice of dishonor and demands to make good the check, the accused failed and refused to do so.
- Charge: Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, alleged damage/prejudice to commercial transactions in general and Flor Catapang de Tenorio in particular.
Informations — Criminal Case No. 25773 (Resurreccion T. Castillo)
- Accusatory portion as charged:
- Date alleged: on or about October 17, 1994 at Batangas City.
- Charged act: wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously draw, make and issue to Resurreccion T. Castillo Security Bank and Trust Company Check No. 038111 postdated to October 24, 1994.
- Amount: TWO HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P225,000.00), Philippine Currency.
- Allegation of lack of funds/credit with Security Bank and that the check was dishonored by the drawee bank on the ground "account closed" when presented for full payment within 90 days of its date.
- Allegation that despite notice of dishonor and demands to make good the check, the accused failed and refused to do so.
- Charge: Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, alleged damage/prejudice to commercial transactions in general and Resurreccion T. Castillo in particular.
Trial Court Proceedings and Decisions
- The petitioner failed to appear for promulgation of decisions despite due notice.
- Criminal Case No. 25484:
- Decision promulgated on December 14, 1995 in absentia.
- Decretal portion: "WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused Norma de Joya guilty of the crime of Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, and hereby sentences said accused to suffer an imprisonment of one (1) year and to indemnify the offended party, Flor Catapang Tenorio, in the sum of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND (P150,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency. SO ORDERED."
- Criminal Case No. 25773:
- Decision promulgated on March 21, 1997 in absentia.
- Decretal portion: "WHEREFORE, the Prosecution having satisfactorily established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, this Court hereby sentences herein-accused Norma de Joya of imprisonment of ONE (1) YEAR and to pay complainant Resurreccion Castillo of the amount of TWO HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND (P225,000.00) PESOS by way of damages. SO ORDERED."
- No appeals were filed from either decision; the judgments became final and executory.
- The petitioner remained at large for about five years before arrest.
Administrative Circulars and Relevant Supreme Court Guidance
- Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 (issued November 21, 2000):
- Enjoined courts and judges to take notice of the ruling and policy enunciated in Vaca v. Court of Appeals and Lim v. People with regard to imposition of penalty for violations of B.P. Blg. 22.
- As explained by the Court, the circular "merely lays down a rule of preference in the application of the penalties for violation of B.P. Blg. 22."
- The circular urges courts to consider purpose of the law and circumstances of the accused (e.g., good faith or clear mistake of fact without taint of negligence) in deciding whether to impose fine alone.
- The circular "does not remove imprisonment as an alternat