G.R. No. 197582 - Sumbilla vs. Matrix Fice Corp.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 197582)

Factual Background

Petitioner obtained a cash loan from respondent and issued six Philippine Business Bank checks numbered 0032863 to 0032868 as partial payment. Each check bore a face value of P6,667.00. Upon presentment, each check was dishonored for being drawn against a closed account. Respondent demanded payment of the face amounts, and petitioner did not comply. Respondent filed criminal complaints for six counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.

Trial Court Proceedings

Criminal Case Nos. 321169 to 321174 were tried before the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 67, Makati City. In its Decision dated January 14, 2009, the MeTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of six counts of violation of BP 22. For each count, the MeTC imposed a fine of P80,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in default of payment. The court also ordered petitioner to indemnify Matrix Finance Corporation in the total amount of P40,002.00 plus twelve percent annual legal interest from September 21, 2002 until full payment.

Post-judgment Motions and Remedies

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the MeTC instead of a timely Notice of Appeal. The MeTC denied the Motion in an April 17, 2009 Order as barred under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure and clarified that the motion did not suspend the period to perfect an appeal. Petitioner’s subsequently filed Notice of Appeal was denied as tardy. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, docketed as SCA No. 09-1125, before the RTC, Branch 61, which dismissed the petition for certiorari. The Court of Appeals thereafter reviewed the matter and held that the proper remedy was an ordinary appeal under Section 2(a), Rule 41, because the RTC acted in its original jurisdiction. The CA denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration by Resolution dated June 28, 2011. Petitioner then sought relief in the Supreme Court by a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, filed August 11, 2011 within an extension period.

The Parties' Contentions

Petitioner acknowledged the finality of the MeTC conviction but contended that the penalty imposed was excessive and beyond the statutory range under Section 1 of BP 22. Petitioner argued that the maximum fine per count is double the face value of the dishonored check, or P13,334.00, and that the imposed fine of P80,000.00 per count was excessive. Petitioner also asserted that subsidiary imprisonment for inability to pay the fine violated Article III, Section 20 of the 1987 Constitution and conflicted with Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 and holdings in Vaca v. Court of Appeals. Respondent countered that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege to be exercised according to rules and that the lost appeal could not be revived through the present Rule 45 petition.

Issue Presented

Whether the penalty of fine of P80,000.00 per count, with subsidiary imprisonment in default of payment, imposed in the MeTC Decision dated January 14, 2009 and now final and executory, may nevertheless be modified to conform to the statutory penalty under BP 22 and applicable jurisprudence.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

Section 1 of BP 22 prescribes alternative penalties: imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one year; or a fine of not less than nor more than double the amount of the check, provided the fine does not exceed P200,000.00; or both, at the court’s discretion. Here, each dishonored check had a face value of P6,667.00, and the maximum fine per count under BP 22 was therefore P13,334.00. The MeTC erroneously based the fine on the aggregate face value of the six checks and imposed P80,000.00 per count, an amount well beyond the statutory maximum.

The Court acknowledged the doctrine of finality and immutability of judgments which ordinarily bars modification of a final decision. The Court, however, recalled its own power and precedent to relax procedural rules when substantial justice requires suspension of rules. The Court cited decisions including Barnes v. Judge Padilla, Rigor v. The Superintendent, New Bilibid Prison, People v. Gatward, People v. Barro, Estrada v. People, and Almuete v. People, where the Court corrected penalties in final judgments that were outside the statutory range. The Court emphasized that where a sentence imposes a penalty in excess of the maximum authorized by law, the excess is void for want or excess of jurisdiction, and correction is warranted in the interest of substantial justice.

On subsidiary imprisonment and the interplay with Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, the Court quoted Administrative Circular No. 13-2001, which clarified that Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 established a rule of preference favoring fines where circumstances show good faith or mistake, but did not remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty. The Court also relied on Lozano v. Martinez to reject the contention that BP 22 violates Article III, Section 20 of the 1987 Constitution, holding that BP 22 punishes the act of issuing a worthless check as an offense distinct from mere nonpayment of debt.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The petition was granted. The Decision dated January 14, 2009 of Branch 67, Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City in Criminal Case Nos. 321169 to 321174 was modified. Petitioner Julie S. Sumbilla was af

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 197582)

Parties and Procedural Posture

JULIE S. SUMBILLA is the Petitioner who sought relief by way of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Civil Procedure to correct the penalty imposed in a final criminal judgment.
MATRIX FINANCE CORPORATION is the Respondent and private complainant in the criminal prosecutions for issuing dishonored checks.
The criminal cases originated as Criminal Case Nos. 321169 to 321174 in Branch 67, Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati City, where Petitioner was convicted.
Petitioner filed a prohibited Motion for Reconsideration and a belated Notice of Appeal which were denied, causing the MeTC decision to attain finality.
Petitioner then litigated in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) by petition for certiorari under Rule 65 which was dismissed, and in the Court of Appeals which rejected the remedy she invoked and denied relief.
Petitioner invoked the discretionary power of this Court to relax procedural rules so that an excessive and legally erroneous penalty could be corrected despite finality.

Key Facts

Petitioner obtained a cash loan from Respondent and delivered six Philippine Business Bank checks as partial payment.
The six checks were numbered 0032863 to 0032868 and each had a face value of P6,667.00, for a total face value of P40,002.00.
All six checks were dishonored on presentation for being drawn against a closed account.
Respondent issued a demand for payment which Petitioner did not heed, prompting the filing of six separate criminal informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22).
The MeTC found Petitioner guilty of six counts of violating BP 22 and sentenced her to pay a fine of P80,000.00 for each count, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of nonpayment, and ordered civil indemnity of P40,002.00 plus 12% annual interest from September 21, 2002.

Procedural History

The MeTC rendered its Decision on January 14, 2009 finding Petitioner criminally and civilly liable.
The MeTC denied Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration as prohibited under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure on April 17, 2009.
The Notice of Appeal was denied as filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, docketed as SCA No. 09-1125 before Branch 61, RTC of Makati, which the RTC dismissed for lack of grave abuse of discretion.
Petitioner sought relief in the Court of Appeals by petition for review under Rule 42, which held that an ordinary appeal under Section 2(a), Rule 41 was the proper remedy and denied relief.
Petitioner then filed the present petition under Rule 45 before this Court within an extension granted by this Court.

Statutory Framework

Section 1, Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) prescribes as penalties imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one year, or a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check subject to a P200,000.00 cap, or both, at the court's discretion.
Art. III, Sec. 20, 1987 Constitution was invoked by Petitioner in arguing that subsidiary imprisonment for nonpayment of debt is prohibited.
Article 39, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 10159, governs subsidiary imprisonment rates and limits when a convict cannot pay a fine.
Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 and Administrative Circular No. 13-2001 relate to the policy on imposing penalties under BP 22 and clarify the continued availability of imprisonment as an alternative penalty.

Issues Presented

Whether