Case Summary (G.R. No. 215118)
Key Dates
July 11 & 28, 2001 – JMV enters lease-to-own and furnishes vehicle to Mandagan in exchange for 34 postdated checks.
June 20, 2003 – JMV’s counsel issues written demand (notice of dishonor).
June 28, 2009 – Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) convicts Mandagan of eight counts under B.P. 22.
February 15, 2011 – Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquits Mandagan but retains civil liability.
June 16, 2014; October 29, 2014 – Court of Appeals (CA) annuls RTC’s acquittal by certiorari.
June 19, 2019 – Supreme Court decision reinstating acquittal.
Applicable Law
1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 21 (Double Jeopardy)
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Penalty for bouncing checks)
Rules of Court, Rule 45 (Certiorari)
Facts
JMV leased a 2001 Kia Rio sedan from BPI Leasing Corporation and delivered its use to Mandagan on the condition that ownership would transfer only upon full payment. Mandagan issued thirty-four postdated checks of ₱12,796.00 each. Fourteen checks were honored; eleven were dishonored for lack of funds or closed account. JMV repeatedly notified Mandagan through its Treasury Head and General Account Supervisor, culminating in a written demand dated June 20, 2003 commanding payment or return of the vehicle plus depreciation costs. Mandagan did not pay or return the car.
Procedural History
MeTC (2009) – Convicted Mandagan of eight counts of B.P. 22; ordered fines, subsidiary imprisonment, and civil indemnity of ₱102,368.
RTC (2011) – Reversed conviction for reasonable doubt, held prosecution failed to prove receipt of written demand; affirmed civil obligation without compound interest.
CA (2014) – Granted JMV’s certiorari petition, found RTC committed grave abuse by misappreciating evidence and reinstated MeTC conviction.
Issue
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in annulling the RTC’s acquittal by certiorari, in violation of the finality of acquittals and double-jeopardy protection.
Finality of Acquittal and Certiorari Exception
Under the 1987 Constitution, an acquittal is immediately final and unappealable to protect against double jeopardy. Review of an acquittal by certiorari is permitted only upon proof of jurisdictional error—grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such as denial of due process or a sham trial. Errors of law or misappreciation of evidence constitute mere errors of judgment and are not certiorable.
Elements of B.P. 22 and Notice Requirement
To secure conviction for issuing a dishonored check under BP 22, the prosecution must prove:
- Issuance of a check.
- Knowledge at issuance of insufficient funds or credit. (Prima facie established upon dishonor if notice is given and payment/arrangement within five banking days is not made.)
- Dishonor for insufficiency and failure to pay or arrange within five days after written notice.
A written notice of dishonor, sent and received prior to filing, is indispensable.
Evaluation of Evidence
RTC Findings: No documentary proof Mandagan received the June 20, 2003 demand; preliminary-conference admissions unexecuted and unsigned; counter-affidavit admission inconclusive as to timing. The purported proof—a June 27 reply-letter and alleged phone admission—was not formally offered or corroborated. Mere oral reminders do not satisfy the written-notice requirement.
CA’s Error: The CA tr
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 215118)
Facts
- Jose M. Valero (JMV) Corporation entered into a lease-to-own agreement with BPI Leasing Corporation on July 28, 2001 for a 2001 Kia Rio sedan, paying down payment, guarantee deposit, initial rental, and notarial fee through JMV.
- JMV delivered the Kia to Maria Nympha Mandagan for her personal use in exchange for thirty-four post-dated checks of ₱12,796.00 each, payable to JMV, with the understanding that ownership would transfer only upon full payment.
- Fourteen checks were honored; eleven were dishonored for insufficient funds or closed account.
- BPI informed JMV of each dishonor; JMV’s Treasury Head and General Account Supervisor repeatedly notified Mandagan and demanded payment; Mandagan requested photocopies of dishonored checks, promised to replace them, and sought one-time settlement.
- On June 30, 2003, JMV’s counsel served a written demand (notice of dishonor) on Mandagan for the eleven dishonored checks plus depreciation costs or return of the vehicle; Mandagan did not comply.
- The City Prosecutor found probable cause and filed eight counts of BP 22 violations in Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC); three other counts were dismissed.
Procedural History
- MTC (Dec. 28, 2009): Convicted Mandagan for eight counts of BP 22; imposed fines, subsidiary imprisonment, and ordered indemnity payment of ₱102,368 plus interest and costs.
- Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 10 (Feb. 15, 2011): Reversed conviction for reasonable doubt, acquitted Mandagan criminally; retained civil liability for ₱102,368 with interest but removed compound interest.
- Court of Appeals (CA) (June 16, 2014): Via Rule 65 certiorari, annulled RTC acquittal as grave abuse of discretion, reinstated MTC conviction; denied Mandagan’