Title
Supreme Court
Go vs. Dimagiba
Case
G.R. No. 151876
Decision Date
Jun 21, 2005
Respondent convicted under BP 22 for 13 dishonored checks; RTC improperly granted habeas corpus, imposing fine instead of imprisonment. SC nullified RTC's ruling, upholding finality of judgment and denying retroactive application of SC-AC No. 12-2000.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 151876)

Procedural History

• MTCC Branch 4, Baguio City: July 16, 1999 conviction for 13 counts of bouncing checks, sentenced to three months’ imprisonment per count and civil indemnity of ₱1,295,000.
• RTC Branch 4, Baguio City: May 23, 2000 affirmed MTCC decision; became final February 1, 2001.
• MTCC: February 2001 arrest warrant and writ of execution; denied motions for reconsideration and partial quashal of execution.
• RTC Branch 5, Baguio City: October 10–11, 2001 granted habeas corpus, ordered release and ₱100,000 fine in lieu of imprisonment.
• Supreme Court: Petition for review under Rule 45, raising purely legal questions.

Facts

Dimagiba issued 13 checks to Go that were dishonored for “account closed.” He was convicted under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 for issuing checks without sufficient funds. Civil liability was separately enforced.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether RTC Branch 5 lacked jurisdiction to modify a final MTCC judgment via habeas corpus.
  2. Whether habeas corpus was a proper remedy to invoke SC Administrative Circular No. 12-2000’s preferred fine-only policy.
  3. If Circular 12-2000 applied, whether the minimum fine should have been ₱1,295,000 to ₱2,590,000, not ₱100,000.
  4. Whether procedural due process was violated by granting the writ without notice to the People’s representatives.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Constitution (post-1990 cases)
• BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law): penalties include imprisonment, fine, or both
• Rule 102 (Habeas Corpus) and Rule 45 (Appeal) of the Rules of Court
• SC Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, clarified by Circular No. 13-2001

Regional Trial Court Ruling

RTC Branch 5 granted habeas corpus based on Vaca v. Court of Appeals and SC Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, finding Dimagiba a first-time offender deserving of fine only. The court noted his non-recidivist status, potential displacement of 200 employees, and satisfied civil liability.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The petition is granted; the RTC orders are nullified, and habeas corpus is denied. The case is remanded to MTCC Branch 4 for re-arrest and completion of Dimagiba’s sentence.

Analysis on Habeas Corpus Remedy

• Habeas corpus tests the lawfulness of detention and applies post-conviction only if jurisdiction is lacking, a right is violated, or the penalty is excessive.
• Dimagiba misused habeas corpus to relitigate a final judgment, amounting to forum shopping. Proper remedy was an appeal with stay of execution, not a habeas petition.

Analysis on Administrative Circular No. 12-2000

• Circular 12-2000 establishes a non-retroactive rule of preference for fines over imprisonment when good faith or mistake of fact is shown.
• It is not a penal law and does not amend BP 22; it guides trial judges for pending or future cases only.
• A judge cannot apply it to modify a final, executory judgment.

Doctrine of Retroactivity and Equal Protection

• Only penal laws favorabl


...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.