ChanRobles Virtual law Library

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

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 165479.� August 3, 2005]

HUI vs. PEOPLE

SECOND DIVISION

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 3 2005.

G.R. No. 165479 (Chan Sioc Hui vs. People of the Philippines.)

For resolution is a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals decision [1] cralaw dated 25 August 2003 which affirmed the Decision dated 7 August 1997 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 3.

As summarized by the trial court, the facts of the case are as follows:

. . . Private complainant extended several loans to accused Chan Sioc Hui a.k.a. Juliet Ting at the agreed interest rate of 2.5% per month payable in advance.

These loans were covered by corresponding checks post�dated from 2 to 3 months issued to her by accused. The rate of interest was later raised to 3% per month. Of the checks issued by accused pursuant to the transactions, 11 checks with a total amount of P2,750,000.00 (Exhs. A to K) were dishonored by the drawee banks, namely:

CHECK NO.������������������������������������������������� DATE������������������������������������������������ AMOUNT

1.�� PBP-974621����������������������������������������������� 3-23-93��������������������������������������������� P200,000.00

2.�� PBP-974625����������������������������������������������� 3-20-93��������������������������������������������� �� 500,000.00

3.�� PBP-974609����������������������������������������������� 4-02-93��������������������������������������������� �� 200,000.00

4.�� PBP-974646����������������������������������������������� 4-05-93��������������������������������������������� ��� 300,000.00

5.�� PBP-974603����������������������������������������������� 4-17-93��������������������������������������������� ��� 250,000.00

6.�� PBP-974606����������������������������������������������� 4-17-93��������������������������������������������� ��� 250,000.00

7.�� PBP-974899����������������������������������������������� 4-17-93��������������������������������������������� ��� 250,000.00

8.�� PBP-97 4888���������������������������������������������� 5-23-93��������������������������������������������� ��� 250,000.00

9.�� PBP-974860����������������������������������������������� 5-20-93��������������������������������������������� ��� 250,000.00

10. PBP-974895���������������������������������������������� 6-06-93��������������������������������������������� ���� 200,000.00

11. FEB-074014761P������������������������������������� 6-26-93��������������������������������������������� ���� 100,000.00

������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� � P 2,750,000.00

The reasons for dishonor were "Account Closed" for the ten PBP checks and "DAIF" for the lone FEB check. Mr. Lazo of the PBP was aware that the checking account no. 0001-0376-0 was closed on March 15, 1993 due to successive issuance of "DAIF" check (Exhs. M to M-3) or mishandling of account. Mr. Enriquez of FEB knew that the checking account of accused with the bank had a balance of P4,175.45 as of June 30, 1993.

Despite the bouncing checks issued by accused, private complainant extended other loans to accused to help the latter recover from her business losses. That time, the business would be managed by the husband of accused, Victor Ting, and her sister, Emily Azajar. To cover the additional loans, accused delivered 19 post-dated checks issued by Victor Ting and Emily Azajar. The P200,000.00 claimed by accused as partial payment for the loans was actually for accrued interest.

On July 6, 1993, accused was formally informed that the 11 checks in question were dishonored by the banks and demand was made for her to settle the loans covered by said checks (Exh. L). As the demand was ignored by accused, the services of a counsel was engaged for a fee to file this suit for which Ms. Tagle executed an affidavit-complaint.

For the defense, accused Chan Sioc Hui, her husband Victor Ting and her niece Suzanne Azajar testified that:������� Accused has known private complainant Ms. Tagle a.k.a. Josie King Tagle since 1989. She learned that complainant was engaged in the money lending business as well as in the buy and sell of jewelries. On the other hand, she was in the furniture business since 1982 and sometimes she sold jewelries.

Their transactions involved jewelries [sic] but later she borrowed money from complainant at 2.5% monthly interest which she was able to pay on time. In 1991 and 1993, she borrowed money from complainant in the total amount of :P2,750,000.00. To cover these loans, she issued the 11 post-dated checks. When the first PBP check for P200,000.00 was dishonored, this was replaced by several customer's checks and two personal checks of Victor Ting and Emily Azajar and which were made good.

Since she could not fund the other checks (Exhs. B to K), she replaced the same with 19 post-dated checks of her husband Victor Ting and her sister Emily Azajar totaling P2,450,000.00. They issued the checks as they would take-over her furniture business. The intended partnership of Victor and Emily was aborted as the latter was not allowed to resign from her teaching post in Naga City. She then replaced the checks issued by Victor and Emily with her own checks - 23 FEB post-dated checks per list (Exh. 9) prepared by Suzanne Azajar.

Despite receipt of the replacement checks, complainant refused to return the checks of Victor and Emily and even filed cases against them. They were convicted of BP BLg. 22 for 7 checks worth P950,000.00 but which they appealed to the Court of Appeals. The other checks they issued were subject of an investigation by the Anti-Fraud Division of the NBI. Of the total loans of P2,750,000.00, accused has paid P650,000.00 covered by various checks (Exhs. 7, 8,10 & 11).

On 7 August 1997, the trial court rendered a decision convicting the accused, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, accused Chan Sioc Hui alias Juliet Ting is hereby FOUND GUILTY of eleven (11) counts of violation of BP Blg. 22. Accordingly, she is sentenced to an imprisonment of 8 months for every count and to indemnify complainant Josefina K. Tagle the sum of P2,750,000.00 for actual damages and to pay the costs.

The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the decision of the lower court.

In the present petition, petitioner raised two (2) issues, thus:

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT THE CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF PETITIONER UNDER BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22 WAS NOT PREVENTED BY NOVATION

THE COURT OF APPEALS' DECISION WAS BASED ON MISAPPRECIATION OF FACTS

As to the first issue, petitioner raised anew the defense of novation. He alleged that the appellate court erred when it ruled that her criminal liability was not extinguished by novation. Verily, whether or not there is novation is a question of law. Such conclusion drawn from facts is a conclusion of law [2] cralaw which this Court may review. Besides, this issue had already been squarely resolved by the Court of Appeals and we find no impelling reason to set it aside. The Court of Appeals ratiocinated as follows:

Unfortunately for the appellant, her novation theory utterly lacks factual basis. Not only did the private complainant belie it, saying that the supposed replacement checks, numbering nineteen (19) in all, were for another loans transaction, thus:

Pros. Supnet:

Q:������������ Madam witness, earlier you testified having received 19 checks from the accused?

A:������������� Yes, Sir.

Q:������������ However, you denied having signed this acknowledgment receipt.

Pros. Supnet:

Q:������������ Pertaining those checks dated March 29, 1993, can you elaborate your answer, madam witness?

A:������������� I did not sign any acknowledgment receipt she just gave it to me the checks because that is another loan she got from me, sir.

Court:

Q:������������ You are referring to the 19 checks?

A:������������� Yes, your honor.

Pros. Supnet:

A:������������� That is all your Honor.

But more importantly, according [to] the Solicitor General, "defense witness Suzanne C. Azajar (a niece of the appellant), confirmed that appellant did not settle her account with Josephine Tagle." She (Suzanne) testified during cross-examination.

Q:������������ (Atty. Cuesta)

So that in 1993, you were well aware of the fact that your auntie Chan Sioc Hui was indebted to the private complainant to the tune of P2,650,000.00? as of that date?

A:������������� Yes, sir.

Q:������������ Up the present this principal obligation was not yet fully settled?

A:������������� Partially settled, but she owes P2-million sir.

xxx������������������������������ xxx

Q:������������ The first set of checks as you said that were issued by the accused to the private complainant, how much was the total amount of this first set?

A:������������� P2,650,000.00 sir.

Q:������������ You said those checks were replaced by other set of check (sic), also in the same amount?

A:������������� No sir, because the original loan was P2,650,000.00, we paid the complainant P200,000.00� composed of customer's checks, so that balance is only P2.5 million and that is the amount of the second set of checks sir.

That Victor Ting and Emily Azajar were themselves convicted for the dishonor of the checks they issued, albeit their conviction is still pending appeal in the Supreme Court, further strengthens the herein private complainant's explanation that the checks issued by the two pertained to another loan transaction they had with the latter.

As to the second issue, petitioner alleged that the Court of Appeals' decision was based on misapprehension of facts.

In the present case, it must be noted that the factual findings of the lower court has been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and we find no cogent reason to review much less depart from the findings of the lower court. Settled is the rule that when the trial court's factual findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court, for it is not our function to analyze and weigh the parties' evidence all over again except when there is a serious ground to believe a possible miscarriage of justice would thereby result. To reiterate, our task in an appeal via certiorari is limited, as a jurisdictional matter, to reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by the Court of Appeals. [3] cralaw

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals, the instant petition is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court



Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Salvador J. Valdez., Jr. with Associate Justices Perlita J. Tria Tirona and Rosalainda Asuncion-Vicente, concurring.

[2] cralaw Acena v. Estolas, G.R. No. 157070, 14 January 2005.

[3] cralaw Danafrata v. People, G.R. No. 143010, 23 September 2003, 412 SCRA 351.


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