DE JOYA v.

JAIL WARDEN OF BATANGAS CITY

G.R. No. 159418-19
DECEMBER 10, 2003
J. CALLEJO, SR.

SUBJECT MATTER:
Philippine criminal law has adopted features of the positivist theory.

DOCTRINES AND APPLICABLE CONCEPTS:

 Positivist theory states that the basis for criminal liability is the sum total of the social and economic phenomena to
which the offense is expressed.
 SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 merely lays down a rule of preference in the application of the penalties for
violation of B.P. Blg. 22

ACTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:

Petition for a writ of habeas corpus

Petitioner: Norma de Joya

Parties
Respondents: The Jail Warden of Batangas City and Hon. Ruben A. Galvez as Presiding Judge of
Batangas City Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch I

SUMMARY:
Petitioner Norma De Joya was charged with two counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 or the Bouncing
Checks Law. She jumped bail during the trial and was eventually convicted of the crimes charged. She remained at large
but after five years she was arrested while she was applying for NBI clearance. She then applied for urgent motion with
the trial court, but was later denied. Petitioner filed the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus contending that SC
Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 deleted the penalty of imprisonment for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 and allowed only the
imposition of a fine.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The Court held that the writ of habeas corpus is not
allowed if the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court
or judge or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record. The Court also ruled that Article 22 of the Revised Penal
Code is not applicable in the case at bar because S.C. Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 is not a penal law and the circular
applies only to those cases pending as of the date of its effectivity. As explained by the Court in SC Admin. Circular No.
13-2001, SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 merely lays down a rule of preference in the application of the penalties for
violation of B.P. Blg. 22.

ANTECEDENT FACTS:
● Norma de Joy was charged separately with violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before the Municipal Trial Court
In Cities in Batangas City.
○ Criminal Case No. 25484: Made and issued to Flor Catapang de Tenorio, Solid Bank Check No. 040297
postdated to October 28, 1994 in the amount of P150,000.00, but it was dishonored by the drawee bank
on the ground 'account closed'
○ Criminal Case No. 25773: Made and issued to Resurreccion T. Castillo, Security Bank and Trust
Company Check No. 038111 postdated to October 24, 1994 in the amount of P225,000.00, but it was
dishonored by the drawee bank on the ground of 'account closed'
● While the trial was going on, the petitioner jumped bail.
○ No evidence was thereby adduced in her defense in any of the two cases
● The petitioner was later convicted and sentenced to one-year imprisonment and to indemnify the offended parties.
● She remained at large and no appeal was filed from any of the trial court decisions
○ She was finally arrested after five years while she was applying for NBI Clearance.

BLOCK 1-H (CARIÑO) – CRIMINAL LAW 1, OYALES

 ● Petitioner filed an urgent motion with the Municipal Trial Court of Batangas City asking the court to apply SC
Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 retroactively pursuant to Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code and to order her
release from detention.
○ Trial court denied the motion on three grounds:
■ its decision convicting the petitioner of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 had long become final and
executory; hence, could no longer be amended to change the penalty imposed therein;
■ the SC Circular should be applied prospectively; and
■ the SC Circular did not amend B.P. Blg. 22, a substantive law, but merely encourages trial court
judges to have a uniform imposition of fine.

ISSUE(S) AND HOLDING(S):

Whether or not Norma de Joya is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus? NO

RATIO:
 Section 4, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, amended, provides that the writ of habeas corpus is not allowed if the
person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or
judge or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record.
o Norma de Joya was arrested and detained pursuant to the final judgment of the Municipal Trial Court of
Batangas City, convicting her of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to a writ of
habeas corpus
 Petitioner’s contended that SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 should be applied retroactively in conformity with
Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code
o The Court held SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 is not a penal law; hence, Article 22 of the Revised Penal
Code is not applicable.
o The circular applies only to those cases pending as of the date of its effectivity and not to cases already
terminated by final judgment.
 Petitioner also argued that SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 deleted the penalty of imprisonment for violation of
B.P. Blg. 22 and allows only the imposition of a fine.
o The Court held that SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 merely lays down a rule of preference in the
application of the penalties for violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
o It only urges the courts to take into consideration not only the purpose of the law but also the
circumstances of the accused.
 The courts are given the discretion to choose whether to impose a single penalty or conjunctive penalties.
o In imposing penalties for crimes, the courts must bear in mind that Philippine penal law is based on the
Spanish penal code and has adopted features of the positivist theory of criminal law.
 The positivist theory states that the basis for criminal liability is the sum total of the social and
economic phenomena to which the offense is expressed.
 The courts has to consider the primary (i.e. the moral responsibility of the convict, the relation of
the convict to the private complainant, the intention of the convict, the temptation to the act or the
excuse for the crime) and secondary elements of punishment (i.e. the reformation of the offender,
the prevention of further offenses by the offender, the repression of offenses in others).
 The penalties imposed must not only be retributive but must also be reformative

DISPOSITIVE:
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.

BLOCK 1-H (CARIÑO) – CRIMINAL LAW 1, OYALES