Yu Oh vs. Ca

ELVIRA YU OH V.
CA
FACTS:
Elvira Yu Oh, purchased pieces of jewelry from Solid Gold International Traders, Inc. Due
to her failure to pay the purchase price, the company filed civil cases against her for specific
performance before the RTC of Pasig. On September 17, 1990, petitioner and Solid Gold through
it general manager, Joaquin Novales III entered into a compromise agreement to settle said civil
cases. It was approved by the trial court provided that petitioner shall issue a total of ninety-nine
post-dated checks in the amount of PHP 50,000.00 each, dated every 15th and 30th of the month
starting October 1, 1990 and the balance of over PHP 1million to be paid in lump sum on
November 16, 1994 (the due date of the 99th post dated check).
Petitioner then issued ten checks at Php 50,000.00 each for a total of Php 500,000.00
drawn against her account at the Equitable Banking Corporation (EBC). Novales then deposited
each of the ten checks on their respective due dates to the company bank account. However,
said checks were dishonored by the EBC for the reason “Account Closed”. Dishonor slips were
issued for each check that was returned to Novales. On October 5, 1992, Novales filed 10
separate informations before the RTC of Quezon City charging the petitioner with violation of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty.
Statutory Construction Issues:
1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not giving retroactive effect to R.A.
7690 in view of Article 22 of the RPC.
2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erroneously construed B.P. Blg. 22
RULING:
First Issue:
Petitioner argues, Failure of the appellate court to give retroactive application to R.A. 7691
is a violation of Art. 22 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that penal laws shall have
retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty.
R.A. 7691 is a penal law in the sense that it affects the jurisdiction of the court to take
cognizance of criminal cases; the offense covered by each of the ten Informations in this case
falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court; and the Court of Appeals
is guilty of judicial legislation in stating that after the arraignment of petitioner, said cases could
no longer be transferred to the MTC without violating the rules on double jeopardy, because that
is not so provided in R.A. 7691.
The Solicitor General, counters that the argument that they are baseless. Penal Laws are
those which define crimes and provides for their punishment.
Laws defining the jurisdiction of courts are substantive in nature and not procedural for
they do not refer to the manner of trying cases but to the authority of the courts to hear and decide
certain and definite cases in the various instances of which they are susceptible. R.A. No. 7691
is a substantive law and not a penal law as nowhere in its provisions does it define a crime
neither does it provide a penalty of any kind.
The purpose of enacting R.A. No. 7691 is laid down in the opening sentence thereof as
"An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
and the Metropolitan Trial Court" whereby it reapportions the jurisdiction of said courts to cover
certain civil and criminal case, erstwhile tried exclusively by the Regional Trial Courts.
Art. 22 of the RPC finds no application to the case at bar.
ART. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. – Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect
insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is
defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a
final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving sentence.law in force at the time
of the filing of the complaint, and once acquired.
In this case, the RTC was vested with jurisdiction to try petitioner's cases when the same
were filed in October 1992 at that time, R.A. No. 7691 was not yet effective.
In so far as the retroactive effect of R.A. No. 7691 is concerned, that same is limited only
to pending civil cases that have not reached pre-trial stage as provided for in Section 7 thereof
and as clarified by this Court in People vs. Yolanda Velasco, where it was held:
"[a] perusal of R.A. No. 7691 will show that its retroactive provisions apply only to civil
cases that have not yet reached the pre-trial stage. Neither from an express proviso nor
by implication can it be understood as having retroactive application to criminal cases pending or
decided by the RTC prior to its effectivity.
Penal Law, as defined by this Court, is an act of the legislature that prohibits certain acts
and establishes penalties for its violations. It also defines crime, treats of its nature and provides
for its punishment. R.A. No. 7691 is not a penal law, and therefore, Art. 22 of the RPC does not
apply in the present case.
Second Issue:
Petitioner insists that: penal statutes must be strictly construed and where there is any
reasonable doubt, it must always be resolved in favor of the accused. Court of Appeals, in
construing that B.P. Blg. 22 embraces cases of "no funds" or "closed accounts" when the express
language of B.P. Blg. 22 penalizes only the issuance of checks that are subsequently dishonored
by the drawee bank for "insufficiency" of funds or credit, has enlarged by implication the meaning
of the statute which amounts to judicial legislation. A postdated check, not being drawn payable
on demand, is technically not a special kind of a bill of exchange, called check, but an ordinary
bill of exchange payable at a fixed date, which is the date indicated on the face of the postdated
check, hence, the instrument is still valid and the obligation covered thereby, but only civilly and
not criminally.
The Solicitor General counters that a postdated check is still a check and its being a
postdated instrument does not necessarily make it a bill of exchange "payable at a fixed or
determinable future time" since it is still paid on demand on the date indicated therein or thereafter
just like an ordinary check. The Court concurred with the Solicitor General.
The rationale behind B.P. Blg. 22 explained by the Court in the landmark case of Lozano
vs. Martinez where the court held that:
The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making and issuing a
worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment
… The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making or
worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Because of its deleterious effects
on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by law. The law punished the act not as
an offense against property, but an offense against public order.
In this light, it is easy to see that the claim of petitioner that B.P. Blg. 22 does not include 'postdated
checks' and cases of 'closed accounts' has no leg to stand on. The term "closed accounts" is
within the meaning of the phrase "does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee
bank".

Yu Oh vs. Ca

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yu Oh vs. Ca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ELVIRA YU OH V.

Statutory Construction Issues:

Art. 22 of the RPC finds no application to the case at bar.

You might also like