ChanRobles Virtual law Library

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

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 146828.March 7, 2001]

RE: PETITION SEEKING FOR CLARIFICATION AS TO THE APPLICABILITY, IMPORT AND EFFECT OF (3) DECISIONS OF THE SC vs. PEOPLE

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 7 2001.

G.R. No. 146828(In Re: Petition Seeking For Clarification as to the Applicability, Import and Effect of Three (3) Decisions of the Honorable Supreme Court, Nilo B. Diongzon v. People of the Philippines).

Petitioner was convicted of violation of BP Big. 22 by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Bacolod City, on March 8, 1989 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment of one (1) year and to pay a fine in the amount of P80,647.75. His conviction was subsequently affirmed, first, by the Court of Appeals on December 20, 1993, and, later, by this Court on December 23, 1999. Entry of judgment in the case (G.R. No. 114823) was made on April 11,2000.

This is a petition for certiorari. Petitioner invokes the rulings in People v. Co, 227 SCRA 444 (1994), Vaca v. Court of Appeals, 298 SCRA 656 (1998), and Lim v. People, G.R. No. 130038, September 18, 2000, to G.R. No. 114823 and prays that a new decision be rendered deleting the penalty of imprisonment imposed upon him in G.R. No. 114823 and retaining only the penalty of fine even though the same may be doubled.

The petition has no merit.

The first case cited by petitioner, Co v. Court of Appeals, promulgated on October 23, 1998, has no application in this case. In that case, this Court ruled that those who issued bouncing checks to guarantee the performance of an obligation, in reliance to the opinion of the Minister of Justice (Circular No. 4, dated December 15, 1981) that such are not covered by BP Blg. 22, cannot be held liable for violation thereof. Here, not only does it not appear that petitioner issued the checks in question in order to guarantee the performance of an obligation, there is further no showing that he did so in reliance to Circular No. 4. As found by the trial court, petitioner, as sales supervisor of Filipro Inc. (now Nestle Philippines, Inc.), issued three checks in order to pay for the Filipro merchandise which he caused to be delivered to unauthorized dealers. Indeed, the contention that he issued the checks to guarantee payment was not raised by petitioner in his petition but only in his motion for reconsideration.

As for the ruling in People v. Vaca, promulgated on November 16, 1998, which was reiterated in People v. Lim, promulgated on September 18, 2000, the Court deleted the penalty of imprisonment and merely imposed on the accused the penalty of fine upon a finding that such would best serve the interest of justice. However, as Administrative Circular No. 13-2001 (effective March 1, 2001) provides, in the application of the penal provisions of BP Big. 22, the circumstances of both the offense and the offender should be taken into account so that, if the facts indicate good faith or a mistake of fact without a taint of negligence, the imposition of a fine alone should be considered.

But in G.R. No. 114823, petitioner did not act in good faith in issuing the checks in question. As sales supervisor of Filipro Inc., petitioner made deliveries of Filipro products to unauthorized dealers and extended to them the same 30-day credit allowance given to Filipro dealers. When the account of his undisclosed dealers became due, he issued the checks in question to answer for the amount payable. Petitioner's lack of good faith was aggravated by the fact that he subsequently denied having issued the checks in question notwithstanding that they were drawn against his bank account and that it was he himself who delivered them to Filipro.

From the foregoing, it is. clear that no reason exists, either in law or equity, for the Court to disturb its ruling in G.R. No. 114823.

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit

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