ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 143418. January 22, 2001]

DINNA C. CASTILLO vs. HON. ILUMINADO C. MONZON.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 22 2001.

G.R. No. 143418 (Dinna C. Castillo vs. Hon. Iluminado C. Monzon, Presiding Judge, MTCC, San Pablo City.)

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure to nullify and set aside the Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated February 24, 2000 in CA-GR SP No. 57261 dismissing the Petition for Certiorari filed by herein petitioner and the Resolution of June 5, 2000 denying the Motion for Reconsideration of said Resolution.

The petition stemmed from a criminal complaint for Violation of B.P. 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law filed by Apolo A. Dayan against herein petitioner Dinna Castillo before the Municipal Trial Court of San Pablo City. It is alleged that on May 3, 1994, Castillo issued to Dayan PCI Bank Check No. 088001332A dated July 14, 1999 in the amount of P100,000.00 and when said check was deposited, the same was dishonored because the account was "closed." Written and verbal demands to make good the check were made by Dayan to petitioner but to no avail.

An Omnibus Motion to Quash with Motion to Reduce Bail was filed by herein petitioner on the ground of prescription of the offense but the same was denied by the trial court. The motion for reconsideration thereof was likewise denied prompting petitioner to file a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-GR SP No. 57261.

On February 24, 2000, the Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition for Certiorari for failure to furnish a copy of the petition to the Solicitor General and for "violation of the hierarchy of courts for no special or compelling circumstance." With the denial of its motion for reconsideration of the said order of dismissal, petitioner found her way to this Court through the present petition.

Petitioner claims that the action cannot prosper because the offense charged has already prescribed. It is alleged that the period of prescription must be reckoned from the date of the issuance of the check; hence, the information which was filed on August 18, 1999, was already filed beyond the four-year prescriptive period for the offense. Petitioner also avers as erroneous, the dismissal by the Court of Appeals based on technicality, justifying the direct filing of the Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals on the basis of a perceived partiality of the judges of the MTC and RTC in San Pablo City.

The Court resolves to deny the present petition.

The dismissal by the Court of Appeals is warranted under the circumstances. First, as correctly found by respondent Court of Appeals, there is indeed a violation of the hierarchy of courts. Petitioner failed to show special and important reasons or exceptional and compelling circumstances that justify a disregard of the hierarchy of courts under Rule 65, Section 4 and as enunciated by this Court in the cases of People vs. Cuaresma, Defensor-Santiago vs. Vasquez and Manalo vs. Gloria

Second, dismissal is, likewise, in order for lack of appropriate service of a copy of the petition on the adverse party which is the People of the Philippines represented by the Solicitor General in accordance with Section 3 of Rule 46.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

The Court further Resolves to NOTE:

(a) the opposition of petitioner to the Solicitor General's second motion for extension of time to file a comment on the petition for review on certiorari;

(b) comment of the Solicitor General on the petition; and

(c) motion of petitioner to expunge the said comment.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE