[G.R. No. 125297.

June 6, 2003] not reached pre-trial stage as provided for in Section 7 thereof and
ELVIRA YU OH, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioner purchased pieces of jewelry from Solid Gold International
Traders, Inc., a company engaged in jewelry trading. Due to her
failure to pay the purchase price, Solid Gold filed civil cases against
her for specific performance before the Regional Trial Court of
Pasig. On September 17, 1990, petitioner and Solid Gold, through its
general manager Joaquin Novales III, entered into a compromise
agreement to settle said civil cases. The compromise agreement, as
approved by the trial court, provided that petitioner shall issue a
total of ninety-nine post-dated checks in the amount of P50,000.00
each, dated every 15th and 30th of the month starting October 1,
1990 and the balance of over P1 million to be paid in lump sum on
November 16, 1994 which is also the due date of the 99th and last
postdated check. Petitioner issued ten checks at P50,000.00 each,
for a total of P500,000.00, drawn against her account at the
Equitable Banking Corporation (EBC), Grace Park, Caloocan City
Branch. Novales then deposited each of the ten checks on their
respective due dates with the Far East Bank and Trust Company
(FEBTC). However, said checks were dishonored by EBC for the
reason Account Closed. Dishonor slips were issued for each check
that was returned to Novales.
On October 5, 1992, Novales filed ten separate Informations,
docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 92-26243 to 92-36252 before the
RTC of Quezon City charging petitioner with violation of Batas
Pambansa Bilang 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law.
Except for the dates and the check numbers, the Informations
uniformly allege.
The cases were consolidated and subsequently raffled to
Branch 99 of the said RTC. Upon arraignment, accused pleaded not
guilty. Trial then ensued. On December 22, 1993, the RTC rendered
its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads.
The Supreme Court finds the accused GUILTY of ten counts of
violation of BP 22 and hereby sentences her to a penalty of one (1)
year imprisonment for each count, or a total of ten years, to be
served in accordance with the limitation prescribed in par. 4, Article
70 of the Revised Penal Code and to indemnify complainant the
amount of the checks in their totality, or in the amount
of P500,000.00.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellate court erred in not granting retroactive
effect to Republic Act No. 7691 in view of Art. 22 of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC)?
HELD:
The Solicitor General, in its Comment, counters that the
arguments of petitioner are baseless contending that: 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; consequently, Art. 22 of the
RPC finds no application to the case at bar; jurisdiction is determined
by the law in force at the time of the filing of the complaint, and once
acquired, jurisdiction is not affected by subsequent legislative
enactments placing jurisdiction in another tribunal; in this case, the
RTC was vested with jurisdiction to try petitioners 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
as clarified by this Court in People vs. Yolanda Velasco[13], 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.[14]
On this point, the Court fully agrees with the Solicitor General
and holds that Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code finds no
application to the case at bar.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court
of Appeals are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Elvira Yu
Oh is ACQUITTED of the offense of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 on ten
counts for insufficiency of evidence. However, she is ordered to pay
complainant Solid Gold International Traders, Inc. the total amount
of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) with 12% interest
per annum from date of finality of herein judgment.
G.R. No. 175781, March 20, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. FRANCISCA
TALARO, GREGORIO TALARO, NORBERTO (JUN) ADVIENTO, RENATO
RAMOS, RODOLFO DUZON, RAYMUNDO ZAMORA and LOLITO
AQUINO, Accused.
FACTS:
Accused-appellants were charged before the RTC of Urdaneta,
Pangasinan, with the crime of murder under an Information reading
as follows:
That on or about the 26th day of April 1994, in the Poblacion of the
Municipality of Laoac, Province of Pangasinan, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conspiring,
confederating with each other, with intent to kill, and with treachery,
and evident premeditation, in consideration of a price, and by means
of motor vehicle, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack and shoot one MELVIN ALIPIO, with a handgun
hitting the latter in the different parts of his body and the wounds
being mortal caused directly the death of said MELVIN ALIPIO, to the
damage and prejudice of his heirs.
Raymundo Zamora is the nephew of Gregorio Talaro, the husband of
Francisca Talaro. In the morning of April 24, 1994, when Zamora
went home for breakfast after driving his tricycle, he found Francisca
Talaro, Lolito Aquino, Renato Atong Ramos, and Norberto Jun
Adviento conversing among themselves under a santol tree in front
of his (Zamora's) house. He went near the group to find out what
they were talking about and he learned that his aunt, Francisca
Talaro, was transacting with the other three accused-appellants for
the killing of Atty. Melvin Alipio. He was merely a meter away from
the group so he heard the group's conversation. He learned that
Francisca Talaro would give the three accused-appellants an advance
payment of P30,000.00 and then another P30,000.00 after Atty.
Melvin Alipio is killed, with said last payment to be delivered
in Barangay (Brgy.) Bactad. The three accused-appellants then
nodded their heads in agreement. After learning of the group's plan,
Zamora got scared and stayed away from the group, but three days
after that meeting in front of his house, he was asked by Francisca
Talaro to drive her and her husband Gregorio to Brgy. Bactad. The
Talaro spouses alighted at a place in Brgy. Bactad, while Zamora
stayed in his tricycle and merely waited for them. He assumed that
the couple delivered the payment of P30,000.00 to someone in Brgy.
Bactad.
Accused-appellant Lolito Aquino, when questioned during
preliminary investigation, admitted that he and co-accused Renato
Ramos conducted a surveillance on Atty. Alipio in the afternoon of
April 25, 1994.
Around 6 o'clock in the morning of April 26, 1994, tricycle driver
Rodolfo Duzon was at the parking area in the poblacion of Urdaneta
waiting for passengers, when accused-appellant Renato Ramos
approached him. Accused-appellant Ramos offered to pay Rodolfo
Duzon P200.00 for the latter to drive Ramos' motorcycle to Laoac,
Pangasinan to take some onions and turnips there. Duzon agreed, so
after bringing his own tricycle home to his house in Bactad,
Urdaneta, he then drove Ramos' motorcycle to the poblacion of
Urdaneta. At the poblacion, Ramos bought a basket where he placed
the onions and turnips. Ramos then told Duzon to drive the
motorcycle to Laoac, but they first passed by Garcia Street in
Urdaneta. At a house along Garcia Street, Ramos alighted and talked
to someone whom Rodolfo Duzon later came to know as accused-
appellant Lolito Aquino. Ramos then told Duzon that after coming
from Laoac, Duzon should leave the motorcycle at that house on
Garcia Street with Lolito Aquino. Ramos and Duzon then proceeded
to Laoac, stopping at a gas station where they fueled up. Ramos
alighted from the motorcycle at the gas station and, taking along the
basket of onions and turnips, walked towards Guardian Angel
Hospital (the clinic owned by the Alipios). Five minutes after Ramos
alighted, Duzon heard three gunshots coming from the west, and
moments later, he saw Ramos, who was coming toward him, being
chased by another man. When Ramos got to the motorcycle, he
ordered Duzon to immediately drive away, and poked a gun at
Duzon's back. Ramos then instructed Duzon as to the route they
should take until they reached Urdaneta where Ramos alighted,
leaving Duzon with instructions to bring the motorcycle to Garcia
Street, leave it with Lolito Aquino, then meet him (Ramos) again at
the poblacion where he (Duzon) will be paid P200.00 for his
services. Duzon did as he was told, but when he met with Ramos at
the poblacion and asked for the P200.00, Ramos got mad and
shouted invectives at him. A few days later, he again ran into Ramos
who warned him to keep his silence, threatening to kill him (Duzon)
too if he tells anyone about the killing. Accused-appellant Norberto
(Jun) Adviento also threatened him not to reveal to anyone whatever
he knows about the crime. That was why Duzon decided to keep
quiet.
Later, however, he revealed the matter to his brother, Victoriano
Duzon, who accompanied him to the Criminal Investigation Services
(CIS) Office in Urdaneta so he could give his statement. He executed
affidavits, assisted by a lawyer from the Public Attorneys Office
(PAO), attesting to what he knew about the crime, in his desire to be
a state witness.
Witness Rene Balanga, who was the helper of the spouses Atty.
Melvin and Dr. Lina Alipio, was cleaning the windows at the clinic of
Dr. Alipio around 8 o'clock in the morning of April 26, 1994. He heard
three gunshots coming from the garage of the clinic, which was
around ten meters away from where he was. Immediately after the
gunshots, he saw a man quickly walking out from the garage, going
towards the main gate, but he was not able to clearly see the face of
the man.
After trial, the RTC rendered judgment. The case was then
brought to Supreme Court for automatic review in view of the
penalty of death imposed on accused-appellants. the Court
transferred this case to the CA for intermediate review.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the law can apply a retroactive effect?
HELD:
The Court agrees with the CA's conclusion that the evidence on
record proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellants
Lolito Aquino, Renato Ramos, and Norberto (Jun) Adviento, together
with Francisca Talaro, conspired to kill Atty. Melvin Alipio.
The presence of any one of the circumstances enumerated in Article
248 of the Code is sufficient to qualify a killing as murder the Court
held that the essence of treachery is the sudden attack by an
aggressor without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim,
depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby
ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the
aggressor. There can be no cavil that the evidence on record shows
treachery in the killing of Atty. Alipio, thus qualifying the crime as
murder.
Another strong indication of Lolito Aquino's and Renato Ramos' guilt
is the fact that they escaped from detention while the case was
pending with the trial court.
It has been repeatedly held that flight betrays a desire to evade
responsibility and is, therefore, a strong indication of guilt. Thus,
Supreme Court finds no reason to overturn their conviction.
On June 30, 2006, Republic Act No. 9346 (R.A. 9346), entitled An Act
Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines, took
effect. The aforequoted provision of R.A. No. 9346 is applicable in
this case pursuant to the principle in criminal law, favorabilia sunt
amplianda adiosa restrigenda. Penal laws which are favorable to
accused are given retroactive effect. This principle is embodied
under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code.
However, appellant is not eligible for parole because Section 3 of R.A.
No. 9346 provides that persons convicted of offenses pushed
with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced
to reclusion perpetua by reason of the law, shall not be eligible for
parole.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated December
15, 2005 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00071 is hereby AFFIRMED with
the MODIFICATION that the penalty of death imposed on accused-
appellants is REDUCED to reclusion perpetua without possibility of
parole in accordance with R.A. No. 9346; and INCREASING the award
of moral damages from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00, and the award of
exemplary damages from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00. The rest of the
award of the Court of Appeals is hereby maintained.
[G.R. No. 141066. February 17, 2005]
EVANGELINE LADONGA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS:
On March 27, 1991, three Informations for violation of B.P. Blg.
22 were filed with the RTC, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 7068 -
7070. The Information in Criminal Case No. 7068 alleges as follows:
That, sometime in May or June 1990, in the City of Tagbilaran,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring, confederating, and mutually
helping with one another, knowing fully well that they did not have
sufficient funds deposited with the United Coconut Planters Bank
(UCPB), Tagbilaran Branch, did then and there willfully, unlawfully,
and feloniously, draw and issue UCPB Check No. 284743 postdated
July 7, 1990 in the amount of NINE THOUSAND SEVENTY-FIVE PESOS
AND FIFTY-FIVE CENTAVOS (P9,075.55), payable to Alfredo Oculam,
and thereafter, without informing the latter that they did not have
sufficient funds deposited with the bank to cover up the amount of
the check, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
pass on, indorse, give and deliver the said check to Alfredo Oculam
by way of rediscounting of the aforementioned checks; however,
upon presentation of the check to the drawee bank for encashment,
the same was dishonored for the reason that the account of the
accused with the United Coconut Planters Bank, Tagbilaran Branch,
had already been closed, to the damage and prejudice of the said
Alfredo Oculam in the aforestated amount.
The cases were consolidated and jointly tried. When arraigned
on June 26, 1991, the two accused pleaded not guilty to the crimes
charged
The prosecution presented as its lone witness complainant
Alfredo Oculam. He testified that: in 1989, spouses Adronico[6] and
Evangeline Ladonga became his regular customers in his pawnshop
business in Tagbilaran City, Bohol; sometime in May 1990, the
Ladonga spouses obtained a P9,075.55 loan from him, guaranteed
by United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) Check No. 284743, post
dated to dated July 7, 1990 issued by Adronico; sometime in the last
week of April 1990 and during the first week of May 1990, the
Ladonga spouses obtained an additional loan of P12,730.00,
guaranteed by UCPB Check No. 284744, post dated to dated July 26,
1990 issued by Adronico; between May and June 1990, the Ladonga
spouses obtained a third loan in the amount of P8,496.55,
guaranteed by UCPB Check No. 106136, post dated to July 22, 1990
issued by Adronico; the three checks bounced upon presentment
for the reason CLOSED ACCOUNT; when the Ladonga spouses failed
to redeem the check, despite repeated demands, he filed a criminal
complaint against them.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT THE CASES CITED BY THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS IN AFFIRMING IN TOTO THE CONVICTION OF PETITIONER
AS CONSPIRATOR APPLYING THE SUPPLETORY CHARACTER OF THE
REVISED PENAL CODE TO SPECIAL LAWS LIKE B.P. BLG. 22 IS
APPLICABLE?
HELD:
The Office of the Solicitor General disagrees with petitioner and
echoes the declaration of the Court of Appeals that some provisions
of the Revised Penal Code, especially with the addition of the second
sentence in Article 10, are applicable to special laws. It submits
that B.P. Blg. 22 does not provide any prohibition regarding the
applicability in a suppletory character of the provisions of the
Revised Penal Code to it.
The main idea and purpose of the Article 10 of the RPC is
embodied in the provision that the "code shall be supplementary" to
special laws, unless the latter should specifically provide the
contrary.
B.P. Blg. 22 does not expressly proscribe the suppletory
application of the provisions of the RPC. Thus, in the absence of
contrary provision in B.P. Blg. 22, the general provisions of the RPC
which, by their nature, are necessarily applicable, may be applied
suppletorily.
The suppletory application of the principle of conspiracy in this
case is analogous to the application of the provision on principals
under Article 17 in U.S. vs. Ponte. For once conspiracy or action in
concert to achieve a criminal design is shown, the act of one is the
act of all the conspirators, and the precise extent or modality of
participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the
conspirators are principals.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed
Decision, dated May 17, 1999, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR
No. 20443 affirming the Decision, dated August 24, 1996, of the
Regional Trial Court (Branch 3), Bohol, in Criminal Case Nos. 7068,
7069 and 7070 convicting the petitioner of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Evangeline Ladonga is
ACQUITTED of the charges against her under B.P. Blg. 22 for failure
of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. No
pronouncement as to costs.