Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ruling
Ruling
Assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner is acquitted of the
ten counts for insufficiency of evidence but is ordered to pay P500,000 to the private respondent, with
12% interest per annum from the date of finality of judgment.
RATIO:
1. NO. The court did not err in not granting retroactive effect to R.A. 7691.
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 its nature and provides for its punishment. R.A. No. 7691 does not prohibit certain acts or
provides penalties for its violation; neither does it treat of the nature of crimes and its punishment. Consequently,
R.A. No. 7691 is not a penal law, and therefore, Art. 22 of the RPC does not apply in the present case.
R.A. No. 7691 which took effect on June 15, 1994, amended B.P. Blg. 129, and vested on the Metropolitan, Municipal
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts jurisdiction to try cases punishable by imprisonment of not more than six (6)
years. Since R.A. No. 7691 vests jurisdiction on courts, it is apparent that said law is substantive.
Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the established rule is that the statute in force at the time of the
commencement of the action determines the jurisdiction of the court. R.A. No. 7691 was not yet in force at the time
of the commencement of the cases in the trial court. It took effect only during the pendency of the appeal before
the Court of Appeals. There is therefore no merit in the claim of petitioner that R.A. No. 7691 should be retroactively
applied to this case and the same be remanded to the MTC. The Court has held that a "law vesting additional
jurisdiction in the court cannot be given retroactive effect”.
2. NO. The appellate court did not err in construing B.P. Blg. 22.
Petitioner: That because penal statutes must be strictly construed and resolved in favor of the accused, the
“insufficiency” of funds referred to in B.P. Blg. 22 must not be made to cover those accounts that are “closed” or
declared to have “no funds.” Post-dated checks, not being drawn payable on demand but rather on a fixed date,
should also be considered as ordinary and not special bills of exchange.
Lozano v Martinez: Thrust of the Bouncing Checks law is to prohibit the making of worthless
checks and putting them in circulation as their effects directly affect public interest. Such intent
is reiterated in Cueme v People and in Recuerdo v People.
Claim on “closed accounts” not being included in the coverage of the B.P. has no merit in view of
the legislative intent of the law which is to protect the interest of the community at large.
People v Nitafan: The law does not distinguish but merely provides that any person who
makes/draws and issues any check knowing that he does not have enough funds shall be
punished.
Petitioner: That no notice of dishonor had been given to her as drawer of the dishonored checks, pursuant to the
requirement expressly provided in B.P. Blg. 22.
STRICTLY CONSTRUED
PENAL LAWS
ART. 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability. No criminal, but only civil liability shall result from the
commission of the crime of theft, swindling, or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the following
persons:
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shall
have passed into the possession of another; and
together.
For purposes of the aforementioned provision, is the relationship by affinity created between the
husband and the blood relatives of his wife (as well as between the wife and the blood relatives
of her husband) dissolved by the death of one spouse, thus ending the marriage which created
such relationship by affinity?
Does the beneficial application of Article 332 cover the complex crime of estafa thru falsification?
Mediatrix G. Carungcong, in her capacity as the duly appointed administratrix of petitioner intestate estate of her
deceased mother Manolita Gonzales, filed a complaint-affidavit for estafa against her brother-in-law,
William Sato, a Japanese national.
Mediatrix alleged that Sato, by means of deceit, defraud MANOLITA GONZALES VDA. DE
CARUNGCONG. The said accused induced said Manolita Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong who was already
then blind and 79 years old to sign and thumbmark a special power of attorney dated November
24, 1992 in favor of Wendy Mitsuko C. Sato, daughter of said accused, making her believe that said
document involved only her taxes, accused knowing fully well that said document authorizes Wendy Mitsuko C.
Sato, to sell, assign, transfer or otherwise dispose of to any person or entity of her four properties all located at
Tagaytay City.
And once in possession of the proceeds of the sale of the above properties,
said accused, misapplied, misappropriated and converted the same to his own personal use and benefit, to
the damage and prejudice of the heirs of Manolita Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong who died in 1994.
Sato moved for the quashal of the Information, claiming that under Article 332 of the Revised Penal
Code, his relationship to the person allegedly defrauded, the deceased Manolita who was his mother-
in- law, was an exempting circumstance.
The prosecution disputed Sato’s motion in an opposition dated March 29, 2006.
In an order dated April 17, 2006, the trial court granted Sato’s motion and ordered the dismissal of the
criminal case.
Dissatisfied with the trial courts rulings, the intestate estate of Manolita, represented by Mediatrix, filed a
petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals which, however dismissed it.
CA: There is a dearth of jurisprudence and/or commentaries elaborating on the provision of Article 332 of
the Revised Penal Code. However, from the plain language of the law, it is clear that the exemption from
criminal liability for the crime of swindling (estafa) under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code applies
to private respondent Sato, as son-in-law of Manolita
The phrase "at the time of his trial" should not be restrictively construed as
to mean the date of arraignment. It is employed in its general sense,
including the rendering of the judgment. It is meant to include everything
that is done in the course of the trial, from
ARTICLE/TOPIC CASE/DOCTRINE HELD/MEANING
General Principles People vs Genosa (Battered (?) Classical Theory – basis:
Woman Syndrome) free will. Presumed to have
acted with freedom, intelligence
and intent.
Self-defense
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable means
3. Lack of provocation
-no unlawful aggression
Characteristics of Criminal Law 1. General
2. Territorial
3. Perspective
General NCC Art.14 – applicable to all Exceptions:
who live and sojourn the PH 1. Treaties
2. Law of preferential app
3. Public International Law
Territorial Art. 2
3. Retroactive
4. Prescribed but undeserved
People vs Formigones (killed his penalties
wife. Not an imbecile)
ART 2 Territoriality
Culpa 1. Freedom
2. Intelligence
3. Negligence/Imprudence
ART.5 Acts which should be Nullum crimen nulla poena sine there is no crime when there is
repressed but are not covered lege no law punishing it
by the law
Dura lex sed lex the law may be harsh but the
law is the law
Conspiracy TRIC-SM
DEAR ATe