ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. Nos. 116566 & 120149. March 15, 2000]

DOMINGO DICO, JR., vs. CA, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 15 2000.

G.R. Nos. 116566 & 120149 (Domingo Dico, Jr., vs. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines.)

Before the Court is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision of this Court, dated April 14, 1999, which affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. Nos. 11759 and 13149 finding him guilty of violations of B.P. Blg. 22.

The Decision sought to be reconsidered ruled that the mere act of issuing an unfounded check is a malum prohibitum. As the drawer of the dishonored checks complained of, although intended merely as a guarantee deposit, petitioner is liable under B.P. Blg. 22.

Petitioner contends that the checks, subject matter of the above-entitled case, were issued merely as guarantee for the faithful remittance of partnership profits; and that petitioner's monetary obligations toward complainant, for which the checks were originally issued, had been more than adequately paid for from the profits of the partnership/joint business venture.

Evidently, the present motion poses nothing new. The issues raised merely reiterate the issues which have been passed upon in the Decision of April 14, 1999, sought to be reconsidered which ratiocinated that "No evidence of any weight whatsoever was introduced to show a set -off or compensation of the monetary obligations for which the checks in question were issued." 1 Decision, p. 9.

After giving the Decision sought to be reconsidered a second hard look, the Court discerns no sustainable basis for reconsidering the same.

The petitioner, also seeks a modification of the penalty imposed in G.R. No. 120149, contending that the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 16, in Criminal Cases Nos. 14791 - 14795, had modified its Decision, dated August 21, 1991, by reducing the penalty of 60 days imprisonment, imposed upon the petitioner in each case, to a fine only per its Order dated January 10, 1992. Copy of the said Order was attached to the present motion for reconsideration to support his contention.

Records do not show that petitioner attached a copy of subject Order to the Appellant's Brief he filed with the Court of Appeals. Neither was the same order attached to the petition for review before this Court.

Petitioner should have apprised the Court of Appeals of the issuance of the Order, dated January 10, 1992, to avoid possible conflicting decisions on the proper imposable penalties.

Whether such omission was done intentional or by mistake, for the failure of petitioner to take the more judicious recourse he alone is to blame. Suffice to state that the circumstances at bar do not warrant a modification of the penalties imposed.

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE