Co vs Court of Appeals

ALBINO S. CO, petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.G.R. No. 100776 October 28, 1993

Facts:

                In connection with an agreement to salvage and refloat asunken vessel — and in payment of his share of the expenses of the salvage operations therein stipulated — petitioner Albino Co delivered to the salvaging firm on September 1, 1983 a check drawn against the Associated Citizens' Bank, postdated November 30, 1983 in the sum of P361,528.00. The check was deposited on January 3, 1984. It was dishonored two days later, the tersely-stated reason given by the bank being: "CLOSED ACCOUNT."

                A criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 2 was filed by the salvage company against Albino Co with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. The case eventuated in Co's conviction of the crime charged, and his being sentenced to suffer a term of imprisonment of sixty (60) days and to indemnify the salvage company in the sum of P361,528.00.

                Co appealed to the Court of Appeals which later affirmed the decision of the lower court. This is a petition for certiorari from the appellee under the grounds that a check issued merely to guarantee the performance of an obligation is nevertheless covered by Batasang Pambansa Blg. 22 or the Anti - Bouncing Check Law. In Circular (No. 4), dated December 15, 1981, pertinently provided as follows:

                2.3.4. Where issuance of bouncing check is neither estafa nor violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Where the check is issued as part of an arrangement to guarantee or secure the payment of an obligation, whether pre-existing or not, the drawer is not criminally liable for either estafa or violation of B.P. Blg. 22.

                However this was later reversed in administrative circular was subsequently issued on August 8, 1984.

Issue:

Whether or not Co is guilty of violating BP 22 at the time of issuance of his check?

Held:

                No. This was because at the time of the issuance of the check on September 1, 1983, some four (4) years prior to the promulgation of the judgment in Que v. People on September 21, 1987, which the RTC's conviction was relied on, the delivery of a "rubber" or "bouncing" check as guarantee for an obligation was not considered a punishable offense, an official pronouncement made in a Circular of the Ministry of Justice.

                The new circular was delivered after almost one (1) year when Albino Co hand the "bouncing" check to the complainant on September 1, 1983.

                The Court merits this case under the maxims that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines," according to Article 8 of the Civil Code. "Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided," declares Article 4 of the same Code, a declaration that is echoed by Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code: "Penal laws shall have, a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal.

               

Ratio:

                This is after all a criminal action all doubts in which, pursuant to familiar, fundamental doctrine, must be resolved in favor of the accused. Everything considered, the Court sees no compelling reason why the doctrine of mala prohibita should override the principle of prospectivity, and its clear implications as herein above set out and discussed, negating criminal liability.

Dispo:

The assailed decisions of the Court of Appeals and of the Regional Trial Court are reversed and set aside, and the criminal prosecution against the accused-petitioner is DISMISSED, with cost de officio.