ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 143507.March 28, 2001]

LIM vs. CA, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 28 2001.

G.R. No. 143507(Ruben Lim vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Hon. Marina L. Buzon and Felicisima Daco.)

Before us is a Motion to Amend Decision filed by the petitioner seeking to amend the decision of the Court of Appeals dated 29 December 1998 which affirmed his conviction by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Big. 22). Petitioner seeks the removal from the decision of the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment imposed on him of three (3) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to not more than six (6) months of arresto mayor, as maximum, for each of the twelve (12) cases he was convicted of, and for the Court to, instead, impose on him a penalty of fine, reasoning out that Administrative Circular 12-2000, which we issued on 21 November 2000, allegedly abolished the penalty of imprisonment for violation of B.P. Big. 22.

The motion is unmeritorious and, hence, must be denied.

First, Administrative Circular 12-2000 did not remove the penalty of imprisonment for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. We clarified this in Administrative Circular 13-2001, issued on 14 February 2001, where we stated:

xxx

The clear tenor and intention of Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 is not to remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty, but to lay down a rule of preference in the application of the penalties provided for in B.P. Blg. 22.

The pursuit of this purpose clearly does not foreclose the possibility of imprisonment for violators of B.P. Blg. 22. Neither does it defeat the legislative intent behind the law.

Thus, Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 establishes a rule of preference in the application of the penal provisions of B.P. Blg. 22 such that where the circumstances of both the offense and the offender clearly indicate good faith or a clear mistake affect without taint of negligence, the imposition of a fine alone should be considered as the more appropriate penalty. Needless to say, the determination of whether the circumstances warrant the imposition of a fine alone rests solely upon the Judge. Should the Judge decide that imprisonment is the more appropriate penalty, Administrative Circular 12-2000 ought not be deemed a hindrance.

It is, therefore, understood that:

1. Administrative Circular 12-2000 does not remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty for violations of B.P. Blg. 22;

2. The Judges concerned may, in the exercise of sound discretion, and taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of each case, determine whether the imposition of a fine alone would best serve the interests of justice or whether forbearing to impose imprisonment would depreciate the seriousness of the offense, work violence on the social order, or otherwise be contrary to the imperatives of justice;

3. Should only a fine be imposed and the accused be unable to pay the fine, there is no legal obstacle to the application of the Revised Penal Code provisions on subsidiary imprisonment.

xxx

Second, and more significantly, we denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner Ruben Lim for having been filed beyond the reglementary failure to pay the docket and other legal fees on time. We, likewise, denied with finality the motion to reconsider the denial of the petition. Perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and failure to do so renders the questioned decision final and executory, and deprives the appellate court or body of jurisdiction to alter the final judgment, much less to entertain the appeal (Republic v. Court of Appeals, 313 SCRA 376, 382 [1999] citing Pedrosa v. Hill, 257 SCRA 373, 379 [1996]).

WHEREFORE, the instant Motion to Amend Decision filed by the petitioner is hereby DENIED. Quisumbing, J., on leave.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com