Simplicio Gadugdug IV 1 Ll.

B
Special Penal Laws
Atty. Danilo Bantugan

Digested Cases in relation to Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.

1. Eduardo R. Vaca and Fernando Nieto, petitioners

vs.
Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines, respondents
(298 SCRA 656)

Facts: The petitioners are employees of Ervine International, Inc., being the president
and the purchasing manager respectively. They issued a check for P10,000.00 to the General
Agency for Reconnaissance, Detection, and Security, Inc. (GARDS) in partial payment of the
security services rendered by GARDS to Ervine but the said check was dishonored for
insufficiency of funds. On March 28, 1988, GARDS wrote a letter to Ervine demanding for
payment that should be given within seven days but Ervine only paid on April 13, 1988 when it
issued another check to another bank. GARDS then filed a criminal complaint against Ervine for
violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Petitioners then contended that they have already paid the amount of
the check and that they have no knowledge of the insufficiency of funds because it is the
responsibility of the company accountant. The petitioners were found guilty by the RTC of
Quezon City whose decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals; hence, a motion for review
was filed which also prayed for the modification of sentence that will delete imprisonment.

Issues: I. Whether or not the petitioners violated Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
II.Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of Administrative
Circular No.12-2000.

Held: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals based on the
following grounds; (1) that the elements of the offense penalized under B.P. Blg. 22 are present,
namely; (a) making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply to account or for value, (b)
knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient
funds which was established when the petitioners only issued a new check 15 days after GARDS
wrote a letter to it, and (c) subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency
of funds; and (2) that even though the petitioners have already paid the said amount, the damage
to the integrity of the banking system cannot be denied. However, the court grants the motion for
the elimination of the sentence of imprisonment knowing that the petitioners are first time
offenders. This would also prevent the unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty which is
pointed out by Administrative Circular No. 12-2000.
2. Alberto Lim, petitioner
vs.
People of the Philippines, respondent
(340 SCRA 497)

Facts: The petitioner issued sixty-four (64) checks to private complainant, Robert Lu, for
the purpose of rediscounting. However, twelve (12) of the 64 checks were dishonored for the
reason “Accounts Closed”. Robert then demanded payment for the amount of the checks but the
petitioner upon his promise to settle the problem did not fulfill his responsibility. Thus, a
criminal complaint for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 was filed. Petitioner then contended that the
twelve (12) checks he had issued are replacement checks for the bad checks issued by
Saranggani, Inc. towards Robert because the former is the guarantor of Saranggani, Inc. He also
added that he had already issued other replacement checks that have already accommodated his
obligation as well as Saranggani, Inc.’s obligation. The trial court then found the petitioner guilty
which the Court of Appeals affirmed such judgment. Hence, a motion for review on certiorari
was filed which also prayed for the deletion of the sentence of imprisonment.

Issues: I. Whether or not the petitioner violated Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
II. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of Administrative
Circular No. 12-2000.

Held: The Supreme Court denied the said petition based on the following grounds; (1)
that the elements of the offense penalized under B.P. Blg. 22 are present, namely; (a) making,
drawing, and issuance of any check to apply to account or for value, (b) knowledge of the maker,
drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds which was established
when the petitioner issued the replacement checks only after three years since the Saranggani,
Inc, has issued the bad checks, and (c) subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds; and (2) that B.P. Blg. 22 does not punish the non-payment of obligation
but the act of making and issuing a check that is dishonored upon presentment of payment. The
court also denied the motion of deletion of imprisonment as a sentence because the petitioner is
not a first time offender.

3. Steve Tan and Marciano Tan, petitioners

vs.
Fabian Mendez, Jr., respondent
(432 SCRA 760)

Facts: The petitioners are the owners of Master Tours and Travel Corporation and
operators of Philippine Lawin Bus Co., Inc., who has a credit line for their buses’ lubricants and
fuel consumption with respondent who is an owner of three gasoline stations. The respondent is
also designated by the petitioners as the booking and ticketing agent of Phil. Lawin Bus Co. in
one of the former’s gasoline stations. Under an arrangement, they pay their obligations through
issuances of checks. On June 4, 1991, petitioners issued a check worth P58,237.75 as payment
for gasoline and oil products but such check was dishonored for having insufficient funds. The
respondent then sent a demand letter but due to the inaction of the petitioner about the said letter,
a criminal complaint for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 was filed. The petitioners then contended that
the amount subject of the check was already extinguished by offset or compensation against the
collection from ticket sales from the booking office. The RTC then convicted the petitioners
whose decision is affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Hence, a motion for review on certiorari is
filed.

Issues: I. Whether or not the petitioners violated Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
II. Whether or not payment through compensation or offset can preclude
prosecution for violation of B.P. Blg. 22.

Held: The Supreme Court denied the said petition based on the following grounds; (1)
that the elements of the offense penalized under B.P. Blg. 22 are present, namely; (a) making,
drawing, and issuance of any check to apply to account or for value, (b) knowledge of the maker,
drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds which was established
when the petitioner, Marciano, admitted of the existence of insufficient funds due to uncollected
receivables, and (c) subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of
funds; and (2) that no compensation can take place between the petitioners and respondent
because the parties are not mutually and principally bound as creditors and debtors, as required
by Article 1278 of the Civil Code for the prerequisite of compensation. But due to the efforts of
the petitioners to settle their obligations and the absence of acting in bad faith, the deletion of the
penalty of imprisonment is granted by the court.

4. Rafael P. Lunaria, petitioner

vs.
People of the Philippines, respondent
(G.R. No. 160127)

Facts: The petitioner entered into a partnership agreement with one Nemesio Artaiz, in
the conduct of money-lending business. They have established sufficient trust with one another
that they both agreed to issue pre-signed checks to each other. But on November 1989, one of the
checks issued by the petitioner was dishonored for insufficient funds. The petitioner then told
Artaiz that he was not able to raise money because he was implicated in a murder case. After the
acquittal of the petitioner, Artaiz then sought for the payment of the petitioner’s obligation. After
inaction by the petitioner, a criminal complaint for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 was filed. Petitioner
contended that the elements for the offense of issuing bouncing checks were not established. The
RTC of Valenzuela City convicted the petitioner whose decision is affirmed in toto by the Court
of Appeals. Hence, a petition for review on certiorari was filed which also prayed for the deletion
of the penalty of imprisonment.

Issues: I. Whether or not the petitioner violated Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
II. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled for the benefits of the rule of
preference in the imposition of penalties in B.P. Blg. 22.

Held: The Supreme Court denied the said petition based on the following grounds; (1)
that the elements of the offense penalized under B.P. Blg. 22 are present, namely; (a) making,
drawing, and issuance of any check to apply to account or for value which was established by
their exchange of pre-signed checks, (b) knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the
time of issue he does not have sufficient funds which was established when consideration was
given by Artaiz, and (c) subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency
of funds; and (2) that the law prohibits the issuance of bouncing checks, not the nonpayment of
obligation. However, the court granted the benefits of Administrative Circular No. 12-2000
because of the known previous relationship of the petitioner and Artaiz which was only
precipitated when the petitioner is implicated in a murder case.

5. Felicito Abarquez, petitioner

vs.
Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines, respondents
(G.R. No. 148557)

Facts: The petitioner issued five (5) checks in favor of Fertiphil Corporation where one
check is for the payment of several bags of fertilizer. However, the five (5) checks were
dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds. After inaction of the petitioner
about the demand of Fertiphil, a criminal complaint for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 was filed.
Petitioner contended that he should not be liable for the five counts of violation for B.P. Blg.22
because; (1) the two checks were already paid before a notice of demand was made; (2) the other
check was dishonored against uncollected deposits and not with insufficient funds; and (3) the
last two checks are only effective upon reconciliation by Fertiphil of its books of account. The
RTC of Dagupan City convicted the petitioner whose decision is affirmed with modification in
the penalty by the Court of Appeals. Hence, an appeal was filed by the petitioner.

Issue: I. Whether or not the petitioner violated Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 for all five (5)
checks issued.

Held: The Supreme Court modified the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The petitioner
is only found guilty for three (3) counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. The decision is based on the
following grounds; (1) that in the two (2) checks where he is acquitted, his payment of the check
before a notice of demand was made has eliminated the second element for the offense violating
B.P. Blg. 22; and (2) that in the three (3) checks where he is convicted, the law punishes the
issuance of bouncing checks, not the purpose for which it was issued.

Digested Cases in relation to Presidential Decree No. 1612.

6. Ernesto Francisco y Spenocilla, petitioner

vs.
People of the Philippines, respondent
(G.R. No. 146584)
 Facts: The petitioner has bought several pieces of jewelry for only P50,000.00 even
though the alleged market value of the jewelries is P655,000.00. It was being sold to him by one
Macario Linghon, the brother of Pacita Linghon. Pacita was a household helper of Jovita
Rodriguez, the owner of the said jewelries. After knowing of the disappearance of her jewelries,
Jovita filed a complaint for theft against Pacita and consequently filed a complaint against the
petitioner for violation of P.D. No. 1612. The RTC of Bulacan convicted Pacita on August 20,
1993 and convicted the petitioner on November 29, 1995. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision convicting the petitioner; hence, an appeal via petition for review on certiorari was filed.

Issue: I. Whether or not the petitioner violated Presidential Decree No. 1612 (Anti-
Fencing Law)

Held: The Supreme Court granted the petition and acquitted the petitioner. The decision
was based on the following grounds; (1) that there is no showing that the decision for the
conviction of Pacita is final and executor when the court rendered its decision in the instant case
of the petitioner, thus, the first element of the existence of the crime of theft or robbery is absent;
(2) that the testimonies of Jovita and Pacita are inadmissible because it does not stress a
connection towards the petitioner as a party to that case; and (3) that the prosecution failed to
prove the real value of jewelries.

7. Ernestino P. Dunlao, Sr., petitioner

vs.
The Honorable Court of Appeals, The People of the Philippines, represented
by the Office of the Solicitor General, and Lourdes Du, respondents
(G.R. No. 111343)

Facts: The petitioner is a duly licensed retailer and wholesaler of scrap iron in Davao
City and has come to the possession of 50 farrowing crates made of GI pipes after a person
aboard a jeep unloaded the pipes in front of his establishment. The said crates were found to be
stolen and were owned by Mrs. Lourdes Du, proprietor of Lourdes Farms. A complaint for
violation of P.D. No. 1612 was then filed against the petitioner. The petitioner then claimed that
the prosecution failed to establish the fact that in receiving the said items, he was motivated by
gain and that the value of the crates are less than the court declared them to be. The RTC of
Davao City convicted the petitioner whose decision is affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Hence,
the present petition is filed.

Issue: I. Whether or not the petitioner violated Presidential Decree No. 1612 (Anti-
Fencing Law)

Held: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The judgment
was based on the following grounds; (1) that the stolen articles were found displayed in the
establishment of the petitioner indicating an intention of selling it; and (2) that the employees
from Lourdes Farms have known of the exact value of the crates and these are more expensive
than that claimed by the petitioner.
8. Juanito Lim, petitioner
vs.
The Court of Appeals, The People of the Philippines, respondents
(222 SCRA 279)

Facts: The petitioner was the owner of the vehicle used in loading some stolen spare
parts belonging to one Loui Anton Bond. The theft was committed through the orders of one Sgt.
Bacalso. The stolen spare parts were even allowed by the petitioner to be kept in his bodega after
being taken from the compound of EGC Mining Corporation. The crime happened while the
owner was being held captive by the NPA. After his release, Bond filed a complaint against
those involved in the thievery including the complaint against the petitioner for violation of P.D.
No. 1612. Petitioner then contended that the testimonies of the witnesses who testified against
him should not be admitted because they are also part of the crime. The RTC convicted the
petitioner and likewise affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Hence, a petition for review was filed.

Issue: I. Whether or not the petitioner violated Presidential Decree No. 1612 (Anti-
Fencing Law)

Held: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The court’s decision is based on the
following grounds; (1) that the petitioner was present when the stolen spare parts are loaded to
his vehicle and has given consent in placing the said stolen items into his bodega, thus, showing
the proof for presumption of fencing on his part; and (2) that it is the role of the fiscal on how to
prosecute certain individuals in order to attain a certain objective.

9. Rolando P. Dela Torre, petitioner

vs.
Commission on Elections, respondent
(258 SCRA 483)

Facts: The petitioner was a candidate for the position of Mayor in Cavinti, Laguna in the
May 8, 1995 elections. However, he was disqualified by the respondent on the ground provided
by par (a), sec 40 of the Local Government Code which prohibits any individual from running to
any elective position if such individual has been sentenced by final judgment for an offense
involving moral turpitude. The petitioner was convicted on June 1, 1990 for violation of P.D.
1612. Petitioner contended that the offense against Anti- Fencing does involve moral turpitude
because it is a mallum prohibitum. And even if it involves moral turpitude, he has already
secured probation for such offense. The respondent still disqualified the petitioner; hence, a
petition for certiorari was filed.

Issues: I. Whether or not the crime of fencing involves moral turpitude.

II. Whether or not a grant of probation affects the applicability of Sec 40 (a).

Held: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision of the
COMELEC. The decision is based on the following grounds; (1) that the crime of fencing
involves moral turpitude because the nature and conditions of the goods sold will suggest the
illegality of their source which may harm the buyer and the mode of the commerce; and (2) that
the grant of probation will not affect the applicability of Sec 40 (a) because its purpose is only to
suspend the execution of the sentence and what the law requires for a person to be disqualified is
a final judgment of a certain case involving moral turpitude,

Digested Cases in relation to Presidential Decree No. 533.

10. Ernesto Pil-ey, petitioner

vs.
The People of the Philippines
(G.R. No. 120548)

Facts: The petitioner is one of three accused persons convicted for the crime violating
P.D. No. 533, or the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law. On April 15, 1994, they took a certain cow which
is white and black-spotted, and butchered the same without the consent of the owner, Rita
Khayad. Their defense was that they thought that the cow they have taken and butchered
belonged to one Waclet Anamot, one of the accused. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
conviction of the RTC; hence, a petition for review on certiorari was filed.

Issue: I. Whether or not the petitioner along with his co-accused violated Presidential
Decree No. 533(Anti-Cattle Rustling Law).

Held: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with
modification on the sentence. Its decision is primarily based on the fact that the evidence
presented clearly shows the guilt of the three accused. Mere possession of a large cattle and not
having the needed documents to support one’s ownership is prima facie evidence for the crime of
cattle rustling.

11. People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee

vs.
Joselito Escarda, Jose Villacastin Jr., Hernani Alegre, and Rodolfo Caňedo, accused
(G.R. No. 120548)

Facts: The four accused are charged of violation of P.D. No. 533 for taking away two (2)
female carabaos belonging to Joel Barieses. Two individuals in the person of Dionesio Himaya
and Rosalina Plaza witnessed the said crime of cattle rustling. The two accused, Escarda and
Villacastin, then contended that they were not the ones seen by the two witnesses because they
were sleeping when the crime happened and that they don’t know one another. They also added
that the prosecution failed to establish if the crime of theft did happen and if they were indeed the
ones performing the crime. The other two accused were still at large. The RTC of Cadiz City
convicted the two accused whose decision is affirmed by the Court of appeals. Hence, an appeal
was filed.
 Issue: I. Whether or not the two accused violated Presidential Decree No. 533(Anti-
Cattle Rustling Law)

Held: The Supreme Court affirmed with modification in the penalty the decision of the
Court of Appeals. Its decision is based on the strong testimony of the two witnesses whose
statements are very credible knowing that they are only four arm’s length away from the place
where the cattle rustling took place. Being very near to the scene would clearly allow the
witnesses to identify the perpetrators of the crime.