CASE: Yu Oh v Court of Appeals DATE: June 6, 2003 PONENTE: Austria-Martinez, J.

Topic in Syllabus: Strict and Liberal Construction

FACTS: Elvira Yu Oh (petitioner) bought jewelry from Solid Gold International Traders (private respondent) but failed to pay purchase price. The company filed civil complaints against her for specific performance with the Pasig Regional Trial Court. Joaquin Novales III, general manager of Solid Gold, and the petitioner entered into a compromise agreement where petitioner was to issue ninety-nine post-dated checks amounting to P50,000 each to be deposited every 15th and 30th of the month from Ocober 1990 to November 16, 1994. Balance of over P1 million was to be paid in cash, lump sum, on November 16, 1994 as well. Petioner issued 10 checks amounting to P50,000 each, drawn against her account in Equitable Banking Corporation. When Novales deposited the checks with Far East Bank and Trust Company, however, checks were dishonored as the account was already closed. October 5, 1992: Novales filed 10 separate Informations. These were consolidated and raffled to Branch 99 of the Pasig RTC. December 22, 1993: RTC rendered a decision finding the accused guilty of ten counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22, also known as the Bouncing Checks Law. She was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for each count and indemnification of P500. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals but the CA found it to be of no merit and affirmed the RTCs decision.

ISSUES:

1. Did the court err in not granting retroactive effect to R.A. 7691 in view of Art. 22 of the RPC? 2. Did the appellate court err in construing B.P. Blg. 22? 3. Is the notice of dishonor to the drawer important in warranting a conviction? RULING: Assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner is acquitted of the ten counts for insufficiency of evidence but is ordered to pay P500,000 to the private respondent, with 12% interest per annum from the date of finality of judgment.

REASONING: 1. NO. The court did not err in not granting retroactive effect to R.A. 7691. Petitioner: That the appellate court failed to give retroactive effect to R.A. 7691 which gave the Municipal Trial Courts original jurisdiction. R.A. 7691 is not a penal law.

Penal laws are those which define crimes and proved for their punishment. The subject Repulic Act, defining jurisdiction, is substantive in nature. R.A. 7691 cannot apply because jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at the time of the filing of the complaint and once acquired, cannot be affected by subsequent legislative enactments.

2. NO. The appellate court did not err in construing B.P. Blg. 22. Petitioner: That because penal statutes must be strictly construed and resolved in favor of the accused, the insufficiency of funds referred to in B.P. Blg. 22 must not be made to cover those accounts that are closed or declared to have no funds. Post-dated checks, not being drawn payable on demand but rather on a fixed date, should also be considered as ordinary and not special bills of exchange. Lozano v Martinez: Thrust of the Bouncing Checks law is to prohibit the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation as their effects directly affect public interest. Such intent is reiterated in Cueme v People and in Recuerdo v People. Claim on closed accounts not being included in the coverage of the B.P. has no merit in view of the legislative intent of the law which is to protect the interest of the community at large. People v Nitafan: The law does not distinguish but merely provides that any person who makes/draws and issues any check knowing that he does not have enough funds shall be punished.

3. YES. The notice of dishonor to the drawer is important. Petitioner: That no notice of dishonor had been given to her as drawer of the dishonored checks, pursuant to the requirement expressly provided in B.P. Blg. 22. Elements for conviction of violation of B.P. Blg. 22: a) Accused makes, draws or issues any check to apply to account or for value. b) Accused knows at the time of issuance that he/she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for payment of the check in full upon its presentment. c) The check is subsequently dishonored. For liability to attach, it is not enough for prosecution to simply prove that the checks were subsequently dishonored. Prosecution must also prove awareness/knowledge of the accused at the time of issuance. - Basis of Yu Ohs awareness of the lack/insufficiency was a line in her Counter-Affidavit where she declares that she told the general manager that the actual status of the checks that the same might not be able to cover the amount of the said checks so stated therein [sic]. Presumption (provided in Sec. 2, B.P. Blg. 22) of knowledge cannot arise if such notice of non-payment by the bank is not sent to the maker/drawer. Jurisprudence has shown that notice of dishonor is vital insomuch as Sec. 2, B.P. Blg. 22 provides the drawee or maker five days in which to come up with the needed money.

Procedural due process demands that a notice is served in order to afford the accused the opportunity to aver prosecution. Also, it was shown through the general managers testimony that no personal demands were made on the petitioner prior to the complaints being filed. Novales also apparently knew of the possible insufficiency of funds. The Court has ruled before that when the complainant was informed by the drawer of such, there is no violation of B.P. Blg. 22.