YU OH vs CA

FACTS:
Erlinda Yu Oh bought jewelry from Solid Gold International Transfers but faile to pay
purchase price for these jewels. Thereafter, the company filed complaints against her for specific
performance with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig. Joaquin Novales, the company’s general
manager, and Yu Oh entered into an agreement where petitioner was to issue ninety-nine post
post-dated checks: they agreed that 50,000 php be deposited every 15th and 30th of the month
from October 1990 to November 16, 1994. Furthermore, a balance of over 1 million was to be
paid in cash on November 16, 1994.
Yu Oh then complied and issued 10 checks amounting to 50,000 each, drawn against her
account in Equitable Banking Corporation. When Novales deposited the checks with the Far East
Bank and Trust Company, the checks were dishonored as the account is already closed.
Thus, on October 5, 1992, Novales filed 10 separate informations which were
consolidated and raffled. Then on December 22, 1993 the RTC rendered a decision finding the
accused guilty of ten counts of violation of the B.P. Blg. 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law. With
this, she was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for each count and an indemnification of
500 php.
Yu Oh appealed to the Court of Appeals stating that she was not granted the retroactive
effect of R.A. 7691 (An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts) for she
filed the complaint and was convicted before R.A. 7691 took effect. She contends that the
Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction over the offense charged in the ten informations. The
Court of Appeals denied the motion and affirmed the decision of the RTC.

ISSUE:
Did the Court of Appeals err in not giving retroactive effect to RA 7691 in view of Art 22
of the Revised Penal Code?

RULING:
Art. 22 of the Revised Penal Code states that “penal laws shall have retroactive effect
insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony…”
A penal law, as defined by the Supreme Court, is an act of the legislature that prohibits
certain acts and establishes penalties for its violations. In this case, petitioner failed to see that
R.A. 7691 is not a penal law and thus, cannot be applied retroactively. R.A. 7691 does not
prohibit certain acts nor it provides any penalties for its violations. It only states the jurisdiction
of the Regional Trial Courts. Thus, R.A. 7961 cannot be applied retroactively since it is not a
penal law and subsequently, Art.22 of the Revised Penal Code cannot be applied.