YU OH v. COURT OF APPEALS (June 6, 2003) TOPIC: Strict and Liberal Construction FACTS: - Elvi ! Yu O" #u $"!

%e& #ie$e% '( )e*el + ( ', S'li& -'l& In.e n!.i'n!l T !&e %, In$. S"e (!ile& .' #!+ ."e #u $"!%e # i$e, %' S'li& -'l& (ile& $ivil $!%e% !/!in%. "e . - Elvira entered into a compromise agreement with Solid Gold, through general manager Joaquin Novales III, to settle the civil cases Elvira shall issue !! post-dated chec"s worth #$%,%%% each starting &ct ', '!!% until Nov '(, '!!) She will also pa* the balance o+ #', at that date - Elvira issued ten chec"s +or a total o+ #$%%,%%% and Novales deposited each on their respective due dates -owever, the $"e$0% *e e 1ISHO2ORE1 (' ."e e!%'n '( 3ACCOU2T CLOSE1.4 - Novales +iled ten separate In+ormations charging Elvira with vi'l!.i'n '( 5!.!% P!,6!n%! 5il!n/ 22 ./ouncing Chec"s Law0 - 12C convicted Elvira She appealed to the C3 alleging that4 a0 12C had no 5urisdiction b0 no notice o+ dishonor was given to her as drawer o+ the dishonored chec"s c0 6closed account7 is not the statutor* cause to warrant prosecution8conviction d0 there is onl* one act, not ten separate cases e0 C3 disregarded the de+inition o+ what a 6chec"7 is, under Sec '9$ o+ the Negotiable Instruments Law - C3 a++irmed 12C decision ISSUES: '0 :oN C3 erred in not granting retroactive e++ect to 13 ;(!' in view o+ 1#C 3rt << <0 :oN the notice o+ dishonor is indispensable in this case =0 :oN the C3 erred in interpreting /# /lg << HEL1: 7) 2O. - 3rguments o+ petitioner4 penal laws shall have retroactive e++ect i+ it +avors the guilt* person> 13 ;(!' is a penal law since it a++ects the 5urisdiction o+ the court to ta"e cogni?ance o+ criminal cases> the o++ense +alls within the e@clusive original 5urisdiction o+ the ,unicipal 2rial Court> C3 is guilt* o+ 5udicial legislation in stating that a+ter the arraignment, the cases could no longer be trans+erred to the ,u2C without violating rules on double 5eopard*, since this is not stated in 13 ;(!' - SC sa*s .same as arguments o+ Solicitor General04 A .i$le 22 '( ."e RPC ( e. '!$.ivi.+ '( #en!l l!*%) 1OES 2OT APPLY .' ."i% $!%e. A 3 penal law is one that prohibits certain acts and establishes penalties +or its violations It also de+ines crime, treats o+ its nature and provides +or its punishment A 13 ;(!' does not do an* o+ these T"e e(' e, i. i% 2OT ! #en!l l!*. Since it vests 5urisdiction on courts, it is SB/S23N2ICE A Since it is substantive, the statute in +orce at the time o+ the commencement o+ the action determines the 5urisdiction o+ the court 13 ;(!' onl* too" e++ect during the pendenc* o+ the appeal be+ore the C3 So, it cannot be remanded to the ,u2C as Elvira pra*ed +or 2) 2O. - Elements that must be proven +or conviction under /# /lg <<4 a0 accused issued an* chec" to appl* to account or +or value b0 accused "new at the time o+ the issuance that he does not have su++icient +unds c0 chec" is subsequentl* dishonored b* the drawee ban"

- Since the second element ."nowledge o+ insu++icienc* o+ +unds0 involves a state o+ mind that is hard to estabish, /# /lg << created a PRI8A FACIE PRESU8PTIO2 o+ such "nowledge4 A the presumption that the issuer had "nowledge o+ insu++icienc* o+ +unds is brought into e@istence 'nl+ !(.e i. i% # 've& ."!. ."e i%%ue "!& e$eive& ! n'.i$e '( &i%"'n' !n& ."!. *i."in (ive &!+% ( ', ."e e$ei#. '( ."e n'.i$e, "e FAILE1 .' #!+ ."e !,'un. '( ."e $"e$0 ' ,!0e !n ! !n/e,en. (' i.% #!+,en.. - 12C ruled that the second element is present based on the counter-a++idavit o+ Elvira .she admitted to Novales her account might not be able to cover the amount o+ the chec"s0 and cross-e@amination -owever, there is 2O PROOF ."!. Elvi ! *!% (u ni%"e& ! n'.i$e '( &i%"'n' .the notices o+ dishonor presented in court were all sent to Solid Gold0 - 2he person alleging that the notice was served must prove the +act o+ service /# /lg << calls +or CLE31 #1&&D o+ notice - #rocedural due process4 the absence o+ the notice deprives an accused o+ an opportunit* to preclude criminal prosecution .b* pa*ing the amount within +ive da*s o+ receipt o+ notice0 - No personal demands were made on Elvira be+ore the +iling o+ the complaints against her 2here+ore, there reall* is N& CLE31 S-&:ING that Elvira "new o+ the dishonor o+ her chec"s 3) 2O. - #etitionerEs agruments4 a0 e@press language o+ /# /lg << penali?es onl* the issuance o+ chec"s dishonored because o+ 6insu++icient +unds7 .and there+ore not +or 6closed account0> b0 a postdated chec", not being drawn pa*able on demand, is technicall* not a special "ind o+ a bill o+ e@change .called chec"0, but an ordinar* bill o+ e@change pa*able at a +i@ed date, hence the instrument is still valid and the obligation covered thereb*, but onl* civill* and not criminall* c0 Lo?ano v ,artine?4 6language o+ /# /lg << is broad enough to cover 3LL FINGS o+ chec"s7 is a mere obiter dictum - SC sa*s .again agreeing with the Solicitor General04 - 1ecuerdo v #eople4 terms and conditions surrounding the issuance o+ the chec"s are I11ELEC3N2 since its primordial intention is to ensure the stabilit* and commercial value o+ chec"s - the clear intent o+ the law is to discourage the issuance o+ worthless chec"s due to its harm+ul e++ect to the public 2here+ore, even ."'%e $"e$0% ."!. ! e &i%"'n' e& 6e$!u%e '( 3$l'%e& !$$'un.4 i% in$lu&e& in ."e $'ve !/e '( 5P 5l/. 22. In Lo?ano and #eople v Nita+an, the Court ruled that /# /lg << is broad enough to cover ALL 0in&% '( $"e$0%, whether present dated or postdated .Lo?ano doctrine is not mere obiter dictum, since it was reiterated in Nita+an0 - 2he term 6closed account7 is within the meaning o+ the phrase 6does not have su++icient +unds in or credit with the drawee ban" 7 O6i.e 4 Novales "new o+ the non-availabilit* o+ +unds when Elvira issued the chec"s to him .she told him so0 No violation o+ /# /lg << i+ complainant was told b* the drawer that he8she has no su++icient +unds in the ban"