YU

 OH  vs  COURT  OF  APPEALS  GR  No.  12597  June  06,  2003  
 
Petitioner:  Elvira  Yu  Oh  
Respondent(s):  Court  of  Appeals  and  People  of  the  Philippines  
 
FACTS:  
 
Petitioner  purchased  pieces  of  jewelry  from  Solid  Gold  International  Traders,  Inc.  Due  to  her  
failure   to   pay   the   purchase   price,   the   company   filed   civil   cases   against   her   for   specific  
performance   before   the   RTC   of   Pasig.   On   September   17,   1990,   petitioner   and   Solid   Gold  
through   it   general   manager,   Joaquin   Novales   III   entered   into   a   compromise   agreement   to  
settle  said  civil  cases.  It  was  approved  by  the  trial  court  provided  that  petitioner  shall  issue  a  
total   of   ninety-­‐nine   post-­‐dated   checks   in   the   amount   of   PHP   50,000.00   each,   dated   every  
15th  and  30th  of  the  month  starting  October  1,  1990  and  the  balance  of  over  PHP  1million  
to   be   paid   in   lump   sum   on   November   16,   1994   (the   due   date   of   the   99th   post   dated   check).  
Petitioner  then  issued  ten  checks  at  Php  50,000.00  each  for  a  total  of  Php  500,000.00  drawn  
against   her   account   at   the   Equitable   Banking   Corporation   (EBC).   Novales   then   deposited  
each   of   the   ten   checks   on   their   respective   due   dates   to   the   company   bank   account.  
However,   said   checks   were   dishonored   by   the   EBC   for   the   reason   “Account   Closed”.  
Dishonor   slips   were   issued   for   each   check   that   was   returned   to   Novales.   On   October   5,  
1992,   Novales   filed   10   separate   informations   before   the   RTC   of   Quezon   City   charging   the  
petitioner  with  violation  of  Batas  Pambansa  Blg.  22.  Upon  arraignment,  petitioner  pleaded  
not  guilty.  
 
Nonetheless,  RTC  convicted  her  of  ten  counts  of  violation  of  BP  22.  CA  affirmed  the  decision.  
 
ISSUES:  
 
(1)      Whether  or  not  appellate  court  was  mistaken  in  not  granting  retroactive  effect  to  RA  
7691  in  view  of  Art  22  of  the  RPC.  
(2)      Whether  or  not  “notice  of  dishonor”  is  indispensable  in  this  case.  
 
HELD:  
 
(1)      No.  RA  7691  is  not  a  penal  law  and  therefore,  Art  22  of  the  RPC  does  not  apply  in  the  
present   case.   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   their   nature   and  
provides   for   its   punishment.   RA   7691   is   a   law   that   vests   additional   jurisdiction   on   courts,  
thus,  it  is  substantive.  The  court  further  held  that  it  cannot  be  given  retroactive  effect.  
 
(2)       Yes.   It   is   necessary   that   a   “notice   of   dishonor”   be   received   by   the   issuer   and   the  
prosecution  has  the  burden  of  proving  the  fact  of  service.  It  thus  stated  in  section  2  of  BP  
22.  It  is  essential  for  the  drawer  to  be  notified  of  the  dishonor  of  her  checks  so  she  could  
make  arrangements  for  its  payment  within  the  period  prescribed  by  law  (5  days).  
 
Hence,  SC  reversed  the  decision  of  the  CA  and  acquits  the  petioner.