G.R. No. L-45330 - Canete vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-45330)

Procedural Background

Petitioner was arraigned and pleaded not guilty in two sets of parallel proceedings: nine informations under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (criminal cases nos. 3790, 3791, 3792, 3793, 4085, 4122, 4123, 4124, 4125) and, later, nine informations for estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code (criminal cases nos. 4379–4387). Immediately after pleading not guilty in the estafa cases, petitioner moved to withdraw his plea and filed a motion to quash on double jeopardy grounds, asserting that the estafa charges duplicated the earlier BP 22 prosecutions. The trial judge denied the motion to quash by resolution dated September 17, 1981. Petitioner filed the present petition for certiorari seeking annulment of that denial.

Facts as Alleged in the Informations

Petitioner, a customer of Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, purchased oil products and simultaneously issued nine checks in payment. When presented to the drawee bank (Philippine National Bank, Naval, Leyte), the checks were dishonored because petitioner’s account had been closed. Pilipinas Shell repeatedly demanded payment or deposit to cover the checks, but petitioner allegedly failed and refused to comply.

Legal Issue Presented

Whether prosecuting and potentially convicting petitioner under both Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code, based on the same issued checks, constitutes double jeopardy — i.e., whether the two sets of informations are identical offenses such that prosecution under both would violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Statutes involved: Section 1 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (criminalizing issuance of checks without sufficient funds) and Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code (estafa by issuance of a check when offender had no funds or insufficient funds).
Applicable constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision rendered in 1990, after the 1987 Constitution took effect).

Statutory Texts and Elemental Differences

Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Section 1) punishes the issuance of a check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that the drawer lacks sufficient funds or credit, where the check is subsequently dishonored for insufficiency. The statute creates a presumption of knowledge from the mere fact of dishonor and does not require proof of deceit or resulting actual damage to the payee.
Article 315(2)(d) (estafa) requires, among other elements, deceit (false pretenses or fraudulent acts) and actual damage to the victim; it criminalizes issuance of a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds or insufficient funds, but as an element of a scheme to defraud.
The Court emphasized differences: (1) BP 22 may penalize issuance for pre-existing obligations, whereas Article 315(2)(d) typically does not (a contemporaneous issuance to induce delivery is key for estafa); (2) the penalties under each law differ; (3) estafa is a crime against property, BP 22 is principally a crime against the banking system and public interest; (4) estafa is mala in se, BP 22 is mala prohibita.

Legislative Intent and Statutory Construction

The Court relied on statements made during the legislative sponsorship of BP 22 (including exchanges involving Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza and Member Veloso) demonstrating that the legislature contemplated that the same act could, under certain circumstances, give rise to both liabilities: BP 22 was intended to be a separate offense addressing the systemic harm caused by bouncing checks, and the statute expressly provides in Section 5 that prosecution under BP 22 is “without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code.” The legislative history indicates that in some factual permutations both BP 22 and estafa might apply, while in others only one would.

Court’s Legal Analysis on Double Jeopardy

The Court reiterated the principle that double jeopardy bars prosecution or punishment for the same offense, not prosecution for different offenses arising from the same act. Where two statutory offenses have distinct elements, prosecution under both does not constitute double jeopardy. The dispositive test is identity of elements; because BP 22 and Article 315(2)(d) differ in essential elements (notably the requirement of deceit and damage for estafa), they are different offenses for double jeopardy purposes. The Court cited precedents (People v. Sabio; People v. Veridian

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-45330)

Procedural Posture

Petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction filed by petitioner Peter Nierras seeking annulment of the respondent Judge Auxencio C. Dacuycuy’s resolution dated September 17, 1981.
The questioned resolution denied petitioner’s motion to quash nine criminal informations docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 4379–4387, entitled “People of the Philippines v. Peter Nierras,” charging estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code.
Petitioner contends double jeopardy because the same acts (issuance of nine checks) were already the subject of earlier pendency in Criminal Cases Nos. 3790, 3791, 3792, 3793, 4085, 4122, 4123, 4124, and 4125 for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law (Batas Pambansa Blg. 22).
Both sets of cases proceeded to arraignment where petitioner entered pleas of not guilty; immediately after entering not guilty pleas in the estafa cases, petitioner moved in open court to withdraw those pleas and filed the motion to quash, which the trial judge denied.
Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the later filing of estafa informations after earlier filing under BP Blg. 22 subjects petitioner to double jeopardy and thus renders the estafa informations invalid.

Facts as Alleged in the Informations and Record

Petitioner was a customer of Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation.
Petitioner purchased oil products from Pilipinas Shell; contemporaneously with delivery, he issued nine checks in payment for those products.
Upon presentation at the Philippine National Bank, Naval, Leyte, the checks were dishonored because petitioner’s account was already closed.
Pilipinas Shell repeatedly demanded petitioner either to deposit funds for the checks or otherwise pay for the oil products, but petitioner allegedly failed and refused to do so.
Two parallel sets of criminal informations were filed arising from the same acts: one set under BP Blg. 22 (bouncing checks) and another under Article 315(2)(d) for estafa by issuance of checks.

Lower Court Ruling (Resolution on Motion to Quash dated September 17, 1981)

The trial judge denied the motion to quash the estafa informations.
The judge’s reasoning summarized: “The motion to quash should be and is hereby denied. Accused Peter Nierras allegedly issued the checks in favor of complainant Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation in payment of oil products which the latter delivered to him simultaneously with the issuance of the checks.”
The resolution articulated the elements of estafa under Article 315(2)(d), citing People v. Sabio: (1) postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued; (2) lack of or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3) damage to the payee.
The judge further stated that under BP Blg. 22, the mere issuance of a check without sufficient funds in payment of a simultaneous obligation, and dishonor upon presentation, is penalized; and that the drawer may also be liable under BP Blg. 22 in addition to estafa.

Legal Questions Presented

Whether filing of nine separate informations for estafa under Article 315(2)(d) after earlier charges under BP Blg. 22 for issuing the same bouncing checks places petitioner in double jeopardy.
Whether petitioner may be held separately liable under BP Blg. 22 and under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code for the issuance of the same checks.
Whether certiorari is the appropriate remedy to challenge the trial court’s denial of the motion to quash.

Statutory Provisions and Elements Quoted by the Court

Section 1, Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (approved April 3, 1979):
- Penalizes any person who issues a check knowing at the time that he does not have sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank, which check is subsequently dishonored for insufficiency of funds or credit, with imprisonment (not less than 30 days but not more than 1 year), or a fine (not less than ? but not more than double the amount of the check, capped at P200,000), or both, at the court’s discretion.
Article 315, Revised Penal Code (Swindling/Estafa) — pertinent clause (2)(d):
- “By postdating a check or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds