Palana v. People, GR No. 149995, September 28, 2007
Facts:
On August 19, 1991, petitioner was charged with violation of BP 22. Private complainant Alex B. Carlos testified that sometime in eptem!er 19"#, petitioner and his wife !orrowed mone$ from him in the amount of P%9&,&&&.&&. 'o secure the pa$ment of the loan, petitioner issued a postdated chec( for the same amount in favor of the complainant. )owever, when the chec( was presented for pa$ment, it was dishonored !$ the !an( for insufficienc$ of funds. u!se*uent demand notwithstanding, petitioner failed to ma(e good the said dishonored chec(.
Petitioner alleged that the amounts given to him !$ private complainant was an investment !$ the latter who was his !usiness partner. )e argued that the su!+ect chec( was not issued in eptem!er 19"# to guarantee the pa$ment of a loan since his chec(ing account was opened onl$ on ecem!er 1, 19"#. )e claimed that private complainant ca+oled him to issue a chec( in his favor allegedl$ to !e shown to a textile supplier who would provide the partnership with the necessar$ raw materials. Petitioner alleged that when the chec( was issued sometime in -e!ruar$ 19"", complainant (new that the same was not funded.
ss!es:
1/ 0hether or or not petitioner petitioner was guilt$ of violation violation of BP 22. 2/ 0hether or not the egional egional 'rial 'rial Court has +urisdiction +urisdiction over the case.
R!l"n#:
On the first issue, after a careful review of the records, the upreme Court sustains petitioners conviction for violation of BP 22. 3ach element of the offense was dul$ proven !$ the prosecution. Petitioner admitted that at the time he issued the su!+ect chec(, he (new that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee !an( for pa$ment of such chec(. Conse*uentl$, when the chec( was presented for pa$ment, it was dishonored !$ the drawee !an( for insufficienc$ of funds. 'hereafter, he received demand letters to pa$ the amount of of the chec( from private complainant !ut he did not compl$ with it. 'he issue as to whether the
Trusted by over 1 million members
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.
Trusted by over 1 million members
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.
amount of the su!+ect chec( represents the amount of the mone$ loaned !$ private complainant to petitioner or as an investment in the alleged partnership is a factual *uestion involving the credi!ilit$ of witnesses.
On the second issue, petitioners argument that it is the 4'C and not the 'C which has +urisdiction over the case pursuant pursuant to .A. .A. #591 is without merit. 6t is horn!oo( horn!oo( doctrine doctrine that +urisdiction to tr$ a criminal criminal action is determined determined !$ the law in force at the time of the institution institution of the action and not during the arraignment of the accused. 'he 6nformation charging petitioner with violation of BP 22 was filed on August 19, 1991. At that time, the governing law determinative of +urisdiction is BP 129 which provides 73xclusive original +urisdiction over all offenses punisha!le with imprisonment of not exceeding four $ears and two months, or a fine of not more than four thousand pesos, or !oth such fine and imprisonment, regardless of other imposa!le accessor$ or other penalties, including the civil lia!ilit$ arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of (ind, nature, value or amount thereof8 Provided, however, that in offenses involving damage to propert$ through criminal negligence the$ shall have exclusive original +urisdiction where the imposa!le fine does not exceed twent$ thousand pesos.
:iolation of BP 22 is punisha!le with imprisonment of not less than ;& da$s !ut not more than one $ear or !$ a fine of not less than !ut not more than dou!le the amount of the chec( which fine shall in no case exceed P2&&,&&&.&&, or !oth fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. 6n the present case, the fine imposa!le is P2&&,&&&.&& hence, the egional 'rial 'rial Court properl$ ac*uired +urisdiction over the case. 'he 4etropolitan 'rial Court could not ac*uire +urisdiction over the criminal action !ecause its +urisdiction is onl$ for offenses punisha!le with a fine of not more than P<,&&&.&&. 6ndeed, .A. =o. #591 contains retroactive provisions. )owever, these onl$ appl$ to civil cases that have not $et reached the pre>trial stage. =either from an express proviso nor !$ implication implicati on can it !e construed that .A. =o. #591 has retroactive application to criminal cases pending or decided !$ the egional 'rial Courts prior to its effectivit$.
