Case Summary (G.R. No. 125297)
Filing of Criminal Informations
In October 1992, Joaquin Novales III filed ten separate criminal informations under B.P. Blg. 22 before RTC Quezon City, charging petitioner with knowingly issuing checks without sufficient funds or credit, dishonored upon presentment, and her failure to pay or arrange payment within five banking days after notice of dishonor.
RTC Conviction and Sentence
After plea of not guilty and trial, the RTC, on December 22, 1993, found petitioner guilty of ten counts of violating B.P. Blg. 22. It imposed one-year imprisonment per count (ten years total, subject to Article 70 RPC limits) and ordered indemnification of ₱500,000.
Court of Appeals’ Affirmation
Petitioner appealed, arguing lack of RTC jurisdiction (due to RA 7691), absence of notice of dishonor, improper construction of B.P. Blg. 22, and that multiple counts arose from a single act. The CA, finding no merit, affirmed conviction and denied reconsideration.
Issues on Supreme Court Review
- Whether RA 7691’s expansion of lower-court jurisdiction should apply retroactively under RPC Art. 22.
- Whether notice of dishonor was required and in fact given.
- Whether B.P. Blg. 22’s scope improperly extended to postdated checks and closed accounts.
Jurisdiction and Retroactivity of RA 7691
The Court held RA 7691 a substantive law vesting jurisdiction, not a penal law defining crimes or penalties; thus RPC Art. 22 (favoring retroactivity) does not apply. At filing in October 1992, RA 7691 was not yet effective. Jurisdiction remains with RTC; retroactive transfer to Municipal Trial Courts is impermissible.
Scope of the Bouncing Checks Law
B.P. Blg. 22 criminalizes issuing checks knowing of insufficient funds or credit, dishonored on presentment, regardless of type (present- or postdated) or reason for dishonor (including “Account Closed”). Jurisprudence affirms its broad coverage to protect banking stability and public interest.
Requirement of Notice of Dishonor
Conviction under B.P. Blg. 22 requires proof of (a) issuance of a check; (b) knowledge of insufficiency; (c) subsequent dishonor; and (d) failure to pay or arrange payment within five banking days after receiving notice of dishonor. Section 2 creates a prima facie presumption of knowledge only upon proof of notice and lapse of the five-day period.
Failure to Prove Not
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 125297)
Facts
- Petitioner purchased jewelry from Solid Gold International Traders, Inc. but failed to pay the purchase price.
- Solid Gold sued petitioner for specific performance in the RTC of Pasig.
- On September 17, 1990, they executed a court-approved compromise: petitioner would issue ninety-nine post-dated checks of ₱50,000.00 each, dated every 15th and 30th from October 1, 1990, with the 99th check and remaining balance due November 16, 1994.
- Petitioner issued only ten of those checks (totaling ₱500,000.00) drawn on her Equitable Banking Corporation account.
- Each check, upon presentment at Far East Bank and Trust Company on its due date, was dishonored for reason “Account Closed.”
- Solid Gold filed ten separate criminal informations in October 1992 in RTC Quezon City, charging petitioner under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law).
Procedural History
- Civil suits filed by Solid Gold in RTC Pasig; compromise reached and approved September 17, 1990.
- Dishonor of checks in late 1990 and early 1991; dishonor slips issued by EBC.
- Criminal Cases Nos. 92-26243 to 92-26252 docketed in RTC Quezon City; petitioner pleaded not guilty.
- RTC Branch 99 convicted petitioner on ten counts on December 22, 1993, sentencing her to one year per count and ordering indemnity of ₱500,000.00.
- Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on January 30, 1996, and denied reconsideration on May 30, 1996.
- Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 125297).
Issues
- Whether Republic Act No. 7691 expanding lower-court jurisdiction should be given retroactive effect under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code.
- Whether notice of dishonor is indispensable before prosecuting under B.P. Blg. 22.
- Whether B.P. Blg. 22 criminalizes issuance of checks dishonored for “Account Closed” and post-dated checks.
First Issue – Retroactivity of R.A. 7691 under RPC Article 22
- Petitioner’s Position: