Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Go Vs Dimagiba

    Uploaded by

    Aitor Luna
    13 views1 page
    Fernando Dimagiba issued 13 checks to Susan Go that bounced due to his account being closed. He was found guilty of 13 counts of violating BP 22 by a trial court and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment along with paying the offended party back plus interest. On appeal, Dimagiba argued the penalty should have just been a fine instead of imprisonment. The Supreme Court ruled that SC-AC No. 12-2000, which prefers a fine over imprisonment for bouncing check cases, could not be applied retroactively to this case as it is not a law that removes imprisonment as a penalty.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Go vs Dimagiba

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Fernando Dimagiba issued 13 checks to Susan Go that bounced due to his account being closed. He was found guilty of 13 counts of violating BP 22 by a trial court and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment along with paying the offended party back plus interest. On appeal, Dimagiba argued the penalty should have just been a fine instead of imprisonment. The Supreme Court ruled that SC-AC No. 12-2000, which prefers a fine over imprisonment for bouncing check cases, could not be applied retroactively to this case as it is not a law that removes imprisonment as a penalty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    13 views1 page

    Go Vs Dimagiba

    Uploaded by

    Aitor Luna
    Fernando Dimagiba issued 13 checks to Susan Go that bounced due to his account being closed. He was found guilty of 13 counts of violating BP 22 by a trial court and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment along with paying the offended party back plus interest. On appeal, Dimagiba argued the penalty should have just been a fine instead of imprisonment. The Supreme Court ruled that SC-AC No. 12-2000, which prefers a fine over imprisonment for bouncing check cases, could not be applied retroactively to this case as it is not a law that removes imprisonment as a penalty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Go vs.

    Dimagiba

    Facts: Fernando Dimagiba issued to Susan Go thirteen checks which, when presented to the
    drawee bank for encashment or payment on the due dates, were dishonored for the reason
    “account closed.” Subqequently, Dimagiba was prosecuted for 13 counts of violation of BP 22
    He was found guilty by the MTCC, was sentenced three months imprisonment, and was ordered
    to pay the offended party the amount he owed plus interest. he pointed out that the penalty of
    fine only, instead of imprisonment also, should have been imposed on him

    Issues:

    (2) Whether or not SC-AC No. 12-2000 can be given retroactive application.

    (2) No. The rule on retroactivity states that criminal laws may be applied retroactively if
    favorable to the accused. SC-AC No. 12-2000 cannot be given retroactive application for it is
    not a law that deletes the penalty of imprisonment. It is merely a rule of preference as to which
    penalty should be imposed under the peculiar circumstances of the case.

    You might also like