ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 132391.� March 2, 2005]
ADRIANO vs. PEOPLE
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 2 2005 .
G.R. No. 132391 (Joselito Adriano vs. The People of the Philippines.)
For our resolution is the petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision [1] cralaw of the Court of Appeals, dated January 23, 1998, in CA-G.R. CR No. 18374, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Joselito Adriano and Edna Adriano." The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment [2] cralaw of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, Makati City in Criminal Case No. 0458 finding Joselito R. Adriano, herein petitioner, guilty of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. His co-accused, Edna Adriano, was acquitted of the charge.
The Information charging petitioner Joselito Adriano and his spouse, Edna Adriano, with violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is quoted as follows:
That on or about the 19th day of December 1982, in the
Municipality of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously make or draw and issue to Alberto E. Castillo, to
apply on account or for value Equitable Banking Corporation Check No. 170065541
dated December 15, 1982 payable to Alberto E. Castillo in the amount of P64,000.00,
said accused well knowing that at the time of issue they did not have
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for payment of such check in
full upon its presentment, which check when presented for payment within ninety
(90) days from the date thereof was subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank
for "Insufficiency of Funds" and despite receipt of notice of such
dishonor, said accused failed to pay Alberto E. Castillo, the amount of said
check or to make arrangement for full payment of the same within 5 banking days
after receiving said notice.
Contrary to law. [3] cralaw
When arraigned, both accused, with the assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued.
The facts as established during the hearing and affirmed by the Court of Appeals are:
Petitioner is the president of "J.R. Adriano Construction." Among his projects were the construction and development of subdivisions in the Sta. Rosa and Bay in Laguna.
Alberto Castillo, complaining witness, was a supplier of construction materials doing business under the name "Silvertown Construction and Development Corporation."
Sometime in 1982, petitioner entered into a contract with Alberto
for the delivery of filling materials to be used for the former's project site
in Bay, Laguna. In October 1982, Alberto delivered to petitioner the materials
amounting to P59,386.40. As partial settlement of his obligation,
petitioner and his wife, Edna Adriano, issued to Alberto Equitable Bank Check
No. 1706554 dated December 15, 1982 in the amount of P25,000.00.
Alberto subsequently endorsed the check to his mother, Rosalia E. Castillo, who deposited the same in her account with Banco Filipino. The check, however, was dishonored because petitioner's account was closed. Alberto informed petitioner and his wife that the check bounced but petitioner took no action on the matter.
On January 4, 1993, Alberto's counsel wrote petitioner demanding payment of the check, however, he failed to comply with the demand.
Petitioner and his wife raised the defense that their signatures on the check were "forged" and that it was issued "without consideration."
After the hearing of the case, the trial court rendered its Decision finding petitioner and his wife guilty as charged, thus:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered finding
Joselito Adriano and Edna Adriano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation
of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 and the Court hereby sentences them to surfer imprisonment
of one (1) year and to pay Alberto Castillo the sum of P25,000.00 with
12% interest per annum commencing January 4, 1983 until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. [4] cralaw
They then interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 18374.
On January 23, 1998, the Court of Appeals disposed of the appeal as follows:
WHEREFORE, the decision subject of this appeal is MODIFIED in the sense that it is affirmed in so far as it found appellant Joselito R. Adriano guilty of, and penalized for, violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and reversed in so far as it found appellant Edna Adriano guilty. Edna Adriano is hereby ACQUITTED.
SO ORDERED. [5] cralaw
Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari.
We have carefully scrutinized the instant petition and found that the petition is merely a rehash of the very issues already passed upon by the Court of Appeals in its assailed Decision. The issues now being raised by petitioner are: (1) that the signatures on the check in question were forged; and (2) there is want of consideration.
We agree with the Office of the Solicitor General that these assigned errors are evidentiary in character, involving questions of fact, not of law.
In petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, evidentiary matters or matters of fact raised in the courts below are not proper grounds nor may such be ruled upon in the proceedings. [6] cralaw We note that petitioner wants us to review and calibrate the whole evidence anew and make another factual determination based thereon. This is improper in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 where only questions of law may be raised. [7] cralaw This Court is not the proper venue to consider factual issues, as it is not a trier of facts. [8] cralaw Factual findings of the trial court are binding on us, especially where the Court of Appeals affirms such findings. [9] cralaw
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated January 23, 1998, in CA-G.R. CR No. 18374 is AFFIRMED. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Authored by Associate Justice Eubolo G. Verzola and concurred in by Associate Justices Jorge S. Imperial and Artemio G. Toquero. Rollo, pp. 76-88.
[2] cralaw Rollo, pp. 28-33.
[3] cralaw See Rollo, p. 28.
[4] cralaw Id. at 33.
[5] cralaw Id. at 87.
[6] cralaw Reyes, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 424 Phil. 829, 835-836 (2002). citing Bautista v Puyat Vinyl Products, Inc., 416 Phil. 305 (2001).
[7] cralaw Larena v. Mapili, G.R. No. 146341, August 7, 2003, 408 SCRA 484, 488.
[8] cralaw Philippine Lawin Bus Co. v. Court of Appeals, 425 Phil. 146, 154 (2002). citing Trade Unions of the Philippines v. Laguesma, 236 SCRA 586 (1994).
[9] cralaw Montecillo v. Reynes, 434 Phil. 456, 468 (2002), citing Philippine National Construction Corp. v. Mars Construction Enterprises, Inc., 325 SCRA 624 (2000).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
