G.R. No. 125297: June 6 2003: 451 Phil. 380

Offense Involved: Violation of B.P. Blg. 22

FACTS: Elvira Yu Oh bought jewelry from private respondent, Solid Gold International Traders but failed to pay purchase price. The parties then entered into a compromise agreement whereby petitioner was to issue ninety-nine postdated checks amounting to P50,000 each to be deposited every 15th and 30th of the month from October 1990 to November 16, 1994. Petitioner issued 10 checks amounting to P50,000 each, drawn against her account in Equitable Banking Corporation. However, when the manager deposited the checks with Far East Bank and Trust Company, the checks were dishonored as the account was already closed. This prompted the private respondent to file a complaint for B.P. 22. RTC rendered a decision finding the accused guilty of ten counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Petitioner appealed to the CA but it found it to be of no merit and affirmed the RTC’s decision. Hence, this case.


  1. Whether or not the appellate court erred in convicting petitioner of ten counts of B.P. 22?
  2. Whether or not the appellate erred in not giving retroactive effect to R.A. 7690 in view of Article 22 of the RPC?


  1. Yes. The appellate court erred in convicting petitioner of ten counts of B.P 22. The liability of the petitioner was not established because the prosection was not able to present the notice of dishonor to the drawer. In cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, it is necessary that the prosecution prove that the issuer had received a notice of dishonor. Since service of notice is an issue, the person alleging that the notice was served must prove the fact of service. Basic also is the doctrine that in criminal cases, the quantum of proof required is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, for cases of B.P.. 22 there should be clear proof of notice.
  • No. The appellate court did not err in not giving retroactive effect to R.A. 7690 in view of Article 22 of the RPC.  Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code finds no application to the case at bar. A penal law, is an act of the legislature that prohibits certain acts and establishes penalties for its violations. It also defines crime, treats of its nature and provides for its punishment. R.A. No. 7691 does not prohibit certain acts or provides penalties for its violation; neither does it treat of the nature of crimes and its punishment. Consequently, R.A. No. 7691 is not a penal law, and therefore, Art. 22 of the RPC does not apply in the present case. R.A. No. 7691 which took effect on June 15, 1994, amended B.P. Blg. 129, and vested on the Metropolitan, Municipal and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts jurisdiction to try cases punishable by imprisonment of not more than six (6) years. Since R.A. No. 7691 vests jurisdiction on courts, it is apparent that said law is substantive. Jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at the time of the filing of the complaint, and once acquired, jurisdiction is not affected by subsequent legislative enactments placing jurisdiction in another tribunal; in this case, the RTC was vested with jurisdiction to try petitioner’s cases when the same were filed in October 1992; at that time, R.A. No. 7691 was not yet effective. In so far as the retroactive effect of R.A. No. 7691 is concerned, that same is limited only to pending civil cases that have not reached pre-trial stage as provided for in Section 7 thereof.


G.R. No. 140756: April 04 2003: 448 Phil. 749

Offense Involved: Robbery With Homicide

FACTS: On September 28, 1996 at past midnight, At Camachile, Balintawak, six passengers boarded the bus, including Victor Acuyan and Juan Gonzales Escote, Jr. who were wearing maong pants, rubber shoes, hats and jackets. Another passenger, SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr., a resident of Angeles City, was seated at the rear portion of the bus on his way home to Angeles City. Tucked on his waist was his service gun. When the bus was travelling along the highway in Plaridel, Bulacan, Juan and Victor suddenly stood up, whipped out their handguns and announced a holdup.. Juan and Victor then accosted the passengers and divested them of their money and valuables. Juan divested Romulo of the fares he had collected from the passengers. The felons then went to the place Manio, Jr. took the identification card of the police officer as well as his service gun and told him: “Pasensya ka na Pare, papatayin ka namin, baril mo rin and papatay sa iyo.” and shot him on the mouth, right ear, chest and right side of his body. Manio, Jr. sustained six entrance wounds. Victor and Juan then moved towards the driver Rodolfo, seated themselves beside him and ordered the latter to maintain the speed of the bus. Victor and Juan ordered Rodolfo to stop the bus along the overpass in Mexico, Pampanga where they alighted from the bus. When the bus reached Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga, Rodolfo and Romulo forthwith reported the incident to the police authorities. Barely a month thereafter, Juan was captured in a checkpoint. While Victor was captured by virtue of a warrant of arrest. Victor denied the charge and interposed the defense of alibi. After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan found Juan and Victor guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide as penalized under Art. 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.


  1. Whether or not trial court erred in finding the accused-appelants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide?


  1. No. The trial court did not err in finding the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide. The prosecution was able to prove the existence of the following essential elements: (a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property thus taken belongs to another; (c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is therein used in a generic sense, was committed. the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Juan and Victor conspired and confabulated together in robbing the passengers of the Five Star Bus of their money and valuables and Romulo of his collections of the fares of the passengers and in killing SPO1 Manio, Jr. with impunity on the occasion of the robbery. Hence, both Juan and Victor are guilty as principals by direct participation of the felony of robbery with homicide under paragraph 1, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.