Nierras vs.
Dacuycuy
G.R. No. 59568-76, January 11, 1990
Digested by: Jade M. Estorninos
Subject Matter: Double jeopardy
Facts of the Case: It appears that Nierras, a customer of Pilipinas Shell Petroleum
Corporation, purchased oil products from it. Simultaneous with the delivery of the
products, he issued nine (9) checks in payment thereof. Upon presentation to the
Philippine National Bank at Naval, Leyte, said checks were dishonored for the reason
that his account was already closed. Thereafter, Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation
repeatedly demanded of petitioner either to deposit funds for his checks or pay for the
oil products he had purchased but he failed and refused to do either.
Eighteen (18) criminal cases were filed before the lower court, as follows: nine
(9) cases for estafa, and nine (9) cases for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law or
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. In both sets of criminal cases, petitioner entered a plea of not
guilty upon arraignment. However, immediately after his plea of not guilty in the estafa
cases, Nierras moved in open court to be allowed to withdraw his plea of not guilty
upon his filing of a motion to quash.
Nierras argues that he would be placed in double jeopardy as all the elements of
estafa under Article 315 (2-d) of the Revised Penal Code are also present in that crime
punishable under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 namely (1) "the postdating or issuance of
a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued; (2)
lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check and (3) damage to the payee thereof."
Regional Trial Court (RTC) Ruling: The RTC denied the motion to quash, stating
that the crime of estafa committed by means of bouncing checks is not committed by
mere issuance of a check. Under Art. 315, par. 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act 4885, the following are the elements of estafa: (1) the
postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time
the check was issued; (2) lack of or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3)
damage to the payee thereof. Under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, the mere issuance of a
check without sufficient funds issued in payment of a simultaneous obligation and the
check was dishonored upon presentation for that estafa is committed under the Revised
Penal Code. At the same time, the drawer will also be liable under Batas Pambansa
Bilang 22 for offense of issuing a check without sufficient funds.
Issue: Whether or not the filing of the nine (9) other information for estafa against
Nierras under the Revised Penal Code after he had earlier been charged with violation
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 for issuing the same bouncing checks will put him in
jeopardy of being convicted twice for the same offenses. In other words, can petitioner
be held liable for the nine criminal cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, and
separately also be held liable for the crime of estafa under Article 315 (2-d) of the
Revised Penal Code for the issuance of the same bouncing checks?
Supreme Court (SC) Ruling: In a petition for certiorari, SC ruled that deceit and
damage are essential elements in Article 315 (2-d) Revised Penal Code, but are not
required in Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. Under the latter law, mere issuance of a check
that is dishonored gives rise to the presumption of knowledge on the part of the drawer
that he issued the same without sufficient funds and hence punishable, which is not so
under the Penal Code. Other differences between the two also include the following: (1)
a drawer of a dishonored check may be convicted under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22
even if he had issued the same for a pre-existing obligation, while under Article 315 (2-
d) of the Revised Penal Code such circumstance negates criminal liability; (2) specific
and different penalties are imposed in each of the two offenses; (3) estafa is essentially
a crime against property, while violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 is principally a
crime against public interest as it does injury to the entire banking system; (4)
violations of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code are mala in se, while those of Batas
Pambansa Bilang 22 are mala prohibita.
SC further ruled that while the filing of the two sets of Information under the
provisions of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 and under the provisions of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, on estafa, may refer to identical acts committed by petitioner, the
prosecution thereof cannot be limited to one offense, because a single criminal act may
give rise to a multiplicity of offenses and where there is variance or differences between
the elements of an offense in one law and another law as in the case at bar there will
be no double jeopardy because what the rule on double jeopardy prohibits refers to
identity of elements in the two (2) offenses. Otherwise stated, prosecution for the same
act is not prohibited. What is forbidden is prosecution for the same offense. Hence, the
mere filing of the two (2) sets of information does not itself give rise to double
jeopardy.
