m o n d a y ,
a u g u s t
9 ,
2 0 1 0
YU OH vs COURT OF APPEALS GR No. 12597 June 06, 2003
my first digest: on retroactive effect(criminal law I)
Petitioner: Elvira Yu Oh
Respondent(s): Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines
FACTS:
Petitioner 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.
Nonetheless, RTC convicted her of ten counts of violation of BP 22. CA
affirmed the decision.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not appellate court was mistaken in not granting retroactive
effect to RA 7691 in view of Art 22 of the RPC.
(2) Whether or not notice of dishonor is indispensable in this case.
HELD:
(1) No. RA 7691 is not a penal law and therefore, Art 22 of the RPC does not
apply in the present case. A penal law is an act of the legislature that
prohibits certain acts and establishes penalties for its violations. It also
defines crime, treats of their nature and provides for its punishment. RA
7691 is a law that vests additional jurisdiction on courts, thus, it is
substantive. The court further held that it cannot be given retroactive effect.
(2) Yes. It is necessary that a notice of dishonor be received by the issuer
and the prosecution has the burden of proving the fact of service. It thus
stated in section 2 of BP 22. It is essential for the drawer to be notified of
the dishonor of her checks so she could make arrangements for its payment
within the period prescribed by law (5 days).
Hence, SC reversed the decision of the CA and acquits the petioner.
Posted by yham at 8:30 PM
Reactions:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Newer PostOlder PostHome
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
anything goes. . .
yhamyham's personal blog:)
elance
blogcatalog
Recent Viewers
FriendlyBlogger4
years ago
Powered By BlogCatalog
payperpost, inc
about me
yham
workaholic. curious. loves challenges.
View my complete profile
blog archive
2010 (7)
o August (7)
Domestic violence. . .
Our Deepest Fear
LIANG VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES GR no. 125865 J...
VALEROSO vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES GR 164815 ...
FAJARDO VS COURT OF APPEAL GR no. 128508 February...
YU OH vs COURT OF APPEALS GR No. 12597 June 06, 2...
fast forward
2009 (1)
followers
