SUSAN GO and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 

petitioners, vs. FERNANDO L.

DIMAGIBA, respondent.

The Case

Before us is a Petition for Review1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the October 10,
20012 and the October 11, 20013 Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) (Branch 5), Baguio
City.4 The October 10, 2001 Order released Respondent Fernando L. Dimagiba from confinement
and required him to pay a fine of ₱100,000 in lieu of imprisonment. The October 11, 2001 Order
disposed as follows:

"WHEREFORE, [in] applying the doctrine as held in the above-entitled cases in this case, the instant
petition for Habeas Corpus should be, as it is hereby, GRANTED. The Baguio City Jail Warden is
hereby ordered to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE the petitioner from confinement unless he is being held
for some other lawful cause other than by virtue of the Sentence Mittimus dated September 28, 2001
issued by CESAR S. VIDUYA, Clerk of Court, MTC 4, Baguio City. Further, the petitioner is required
to pay a fine in the amount of ₱100,000.00 in lieu of his imprisonment, in addition to the civil aspect
of the Joint Judgment rendered by MTC 4 dated July 16, 1999."5

The Facts

The pertinent facts are not disputed. Respondent Fernando L. Dimagiba issued to Petitioner Susan
Go thirteen (13) checks which, when presented to the drawee bank for encashment or payment on
the due dates, were dishonored for the reason "account closed."6 Dimagiba was subsequently
prosecuted for 13 counts of violation of BP 227 under separate Complaints filed with the Municipal
Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) in Baguio City.8 After a joint trial, the MTCC (Branch 4) rendered a
Decision on July 16, 1999, convicting the accused in the 13 cases. The dispositive portion reads as
follows:

"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing disquisition, this Court finds the evidence of the prosecution
to have established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses charged and
imposes upon the accused the penalty of 3 months imprisonment for each count (13 counts) and to
indemnify the offended party the amount of One Million Two Hundred Ninety Five Thousand Pesos
(₱1,295,000.00) with legal interest per annum commencing from 1996 after the checks were
dishonored by reason ‘ACCOUNT CLOSED’ on December 13, 1995, to pay attorney’s fees of
₱15,000.00 and to pay the costs."9

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

Right after hearing the case on October 10, 2001, the RTC issued an Order directing the immediate
release of Dimagiba from confinement and requiring him to pay a fine of ₱100,000 in lieu of
imprisonment. However, the civil aspect of the July 16, 1999 MTCC Decision was not touched
upon.19 A subsequent Order, explaining in greater detail the basis of the grant of the writ of habeas
corpus, was issued on October 11, 2001.20

In justifying its modification of the MTCC Decision, the RTC invoked Vaca v. Court of Appeals21 and
Supreme Court Administrative Circular (SC-AC) No. 12-2000,22 which allegedly required the
imposition of a fine only instead of imprisonment also for BP 22 violations, if the accused was not a
recidivist or a habitual delinquent. The RTC held that this rule should be retroactively applied in favor
of Dimagiba.23 It further noted that (1) he was a first-time offender and an employer of at least 200
workers who would be displaced as a result of his imprisonment; and (2) the civil liability had already
been satisfied through the levy of his properties.24

On October 22, 2001, Petitioner Go filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the RTC Orders dated
October 10 and 11, 2001.25 That Motion was denied on January 18, 2002.26

Hence, this Petition filed directly with this Court on pure questions of law.27

The practice is prohibited by law because of its deleterious effects on public interest. The effects of
the increase of worthless checks transcend the private interest of the parties directly involved in the
transaction and touches the interest of the community at large. The mischief it creates is not only a
wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury to the public. The harmful practice of putting
valueless commercial papers in circulation multiplied a thousand-fold can very well pollute the
channels of trade and commerce, injure the banking system and eventually hurt the welfare of
society and the public interest. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property but an
offense against public order."66

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and the assailed Orders NULLIFIED. Respondent’s

Petition for habeas corpus is hereby DENIED. Let this case be REMANDED to MTCC of Baguio City
for the re-arrest of respondent and the completion of his sentence.

No pronouncement as to costs.

People vs. Sayana (405 SCRA 203)

FACTS:
Appellant was charged with two counts of rape committed against the daughter of his common-law wife.
The prosecution evidence showed that appellant forced himself upon the daughter of his eleven-year old
common-law wife in their residence in Bulacan. Appellant swore that he treated the complainant as his
own child and he did not have the heart to molest her. Appellant’s alibi was corroborated by his father,
and their neighbor, and also by his time card, as against the allegations. Several medical examinations
were conducted by different physicians with some contradictory results. It was also observed that
complainant’s narration of how appellant allegedly ravished her on two occasions (of rape) were
incredibly identical, as if lifted from a single script.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellant is entitled for acquittal.

HELD:
YES. Appellant was acquitted.

RATIO:
The explanation given by the physician who testified for the prosecution itself, plus the fact that
complainant underwent several gynecological examinations before she went to the authorities discount
the credibility of the latter’s testimony that she has been raped.
In rape cases, it is the primordial duty of the prosecution to present its case with clarity and persuasion to
the end that conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion. Proof beyond reasonable
doubt is required. Although the law does not demand absolute certainty of guilt, it nonetheless requires
moral certainty to support a judgment of conviction. Where the inculpatory facts admit of several
interpretations, one consistent with accused’s innocence and another with his guilt, the evidence thus
adduced fails to meet the test of moral certainty and it becomes the constitutional duty of the Court to
acquit the accused (doctrine of pro reo).

Article V
Criminal Jurisdiction
 
1. Subject to the provisions of this article:
 
(a) Philippine authorities shall have jurisdiction over United
States personnel with respect to offenses committed within the
Philippines and punishable under the law of the Philippines.
 
(b) United States military authorities shall have the right to
exercise within the Philippines all criminal and disciplinary
jurisdiction conferred on them by the military law of the United
States over United States personnel in the Philippines.
 
2. (a) Philippine authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over
United States personnel with respect to offenses, including offenses
relating to the security of the Philippines, punishable under the laws
of the Philippines, but not under the laws of the United States.
 
(b) United States authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction
over United States personnel with respect to offenses, including
offenses relating to the security of the United States,
punishable under the laws of the United States, but not under the
laws of the Philippines.
 
(c) For the purposes of this paragraph and paragraph 3 of this
article, an offense relating to security means:
 
(1) treason;
 
(2) sabotage, espionage or violation of any law relating to
national defense.
 
3. In cases where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent,
the following rules shall apply:
 
(a) Philippine authorities shall have the primary right to
exercise jurisdiction over all offenses committed by United
States personnel, except in cases provided for in paragraphs l
(b), 2 (b), and 3 (b) of this Article.
 (b) United States military authorities shall have the primary
right to exercise jurisdiction over United States personnel
subject to the military law of the United States in relation to:
 
(1) offenses solely against the property or security of the
United States or offenses solely against the property or
person of United States personnel; and
 
(2) offenses arising out of any act or omission done in
performance of official duty.
 
(c) The authorities of either government may request the
authorities of the other government to waive their primary right
to exercise jurisdiction in a particular case.
 
(d) Recognizing the responsibility of the United States military
authorities to maintain good order and discipline among their
forces, Philippine authorities will, upon request by the United
States, waive their primary right to exercise jurisdiction except
in cases of particular importance to the Philippines. If the
Government of the Philippines determines that the case is of
particular importance, it shall communicate such determination to
the United States authorities within twenty (20) days after the
Philippine authorities receive the United States request.
 
(e) When the United States military commander determines that an
offense charged by authorities of the Philippines against United
States personnel arises out of an act or omission done in the
performance of official duty, the commander will issue a
certificate setting forth such determination. This certificate
will be transmitted to the appropriate authorities of the
Philippines and will constitute sufficient proof of performance
of official duty for the purposes of paragraph 3(b)(2) of this
article. In those cases where the Government of the Philippines
believes the circumstances of the case require a review of the
duty certificate, United States military authorities and
Philippine authorities shall consult immediately. Philippine
authorities at the highest levels may also present any
information bearing on its validity. United States military
authorities shall take full account of the Philippine position.
Where appropriate, United States military authorities will take
disciplinary or other action against offenders in official duty
cases, and notify the Government of the Philippines of the
actions taken.
 
(f) If the government having the primary right does not exercise
jurisdiction, it shall notify the authorities of the other
government as soon as possible.
 
(g) The authorities of the Philippines and the United States
shall notify each other of the disposition of all cases in which
 both the authorities of the Philippines and the United States
have the right to exercise jurisdiction.
 
4. Within the scope of their legal competence, the authorities of the
Philippines and the United States shall assist each other in the
arrest of United States personnel in the Philippines and in handing
them over to authorities who are to exercise jurisdiction in
accordance with the provisions of this article.
 
5. United States military authorities shall promptly notify Philippine
authorities of the arrest or detention of United States personnel who
are subject to Philippine primary or exclusive jurisdiction.
Philippine authorities shall promptly notify United States military
authorities of the arrest or detention of any United States personnel.
 
6. The custody of any United States personnel over whom the
Philippines is to exercise jurisdiction shall immediately reside with
United States military authorities, if they so request, from the
commission of the offense until completion of all judicial
proceedings. United States military authorities shall, upon formal
notification by the Philippine authorities and without delay, make
such personnel available to those authorities in time for any
investigative or judicial proceedings relating to the offense with
which the person has been charged. In extraordinary cases, the
Philippine Government shall present its position to the United States
Government regarding custody, which the United States Government shall
take into full account. In the event Philippine judicial proceedings
are not completed within one year, the United States shall be relieved
of any obligations under this paragraph. The one year period will not
include the time necessary to appeal. Also, the one year period will
not include any time during which scheduled trial procedures are
delayed because United States authorities, after timely notification
by Philippine authorities to arrange for the presence of the accused,
fail to do so.
 
7. Within the scope of their legal authority, United States and
Philippine authorities shall assist each other in the carrying out of
all necessary investigations into offenses and shall cooperate in
providing for the attendance of witnesses and in the collection and
production of evidence, including seizure and, in proper cases, the
delivery of objects connected with an offense.
 
8. When United States personnel have been tried in accordance with the
provisions of this article and have been acquitted or have been
convicted and are serving, or have served their sentence, or have had
their sentence remitted or suspended, or have been pardoned, they may
not be tried again for the same offense in the Philippines. Nothing in
this paragraph, however, shall prevent United States military
authorities from trying United States personnel for any violation of
rules of discipline arising from the act or omission which constituted
an offense for which they were tried by Philippine authorities.
 
9. When United States personnel are detained, taken into custody, or
prosecuted by Philippine authorities, they shall be accorded all
procedural safeguards established by the law of the Philippines. At
the minimum, United States personnel shall be entitled:
 
(a) To a prompt and speedy trial;
 
(b) To be informed in advance of trial of the specific charge or
charges made against them and to have reasonable time to prepare
a defense;
 
(c) To be confronted with witnesses against them and to cross
examine such witnesses;
 
(d) To present evidence in their defense and to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses;
 
(e) To have free and assisted legal representation of their own
choice on the same basis as nationals of the Philippines;
 
(f) To have the services of a competent interpreter;
 
(g) To communicate promptly with and to be visited regularly by
United States authorities, and to have such authorities present
at all judicial proceedings. These proceedings shall be public
unless the court, in accordance with Philippine law, excludes
persons who have no role in the proceedings.
10. The confinement or detention by Philippine authorities of United
States personnel shall be carried out in facilities agreed on by
appropriate Philippine and United States authorities. United States
personnel serving sentences in the Philippines shall have the right to
visits and material assistance.
 
11. United States personnel shall be subject to trial only in
Philippine courts of ordinary jurisdiction, and shall not be subject
to the jurisdiction of Philippine military or religious courts.

Retribution
The Law Dictionary describes retribution as being “at the heart of just about all judicial
systems that deal with law and order. To the extent that punishment is supposed to fit
the crime, retributive justice can be distinguished from revenge in the sense that
defendants are expected to give up something in return for the offences they
committed.” 
In plain language, this is not “eye for eye” revenge. Rather it is a judgement of
sentencing of the court delivering punishment for a criminal act.

The process of a trial calculates and determines this punishment. Punishment will
usually take away certain freedoms and rights. It will often be imprisonment.

Several factors will determine the length of imprisonment. These include the
seriousness of the criminal acts and the maximum penalty at law. 

Deterrence
Deterrence is one of the primary objectives of criminal law. The goal of deterrence is to
discourage members of society from committing criminal laws. Fear of punishment is
the general deterrence and discouragement. 

Deterrence is only effective if a person has the capacity to reflect. That is, if they can
understand the consequences of committing a crime, including retributive justice. 

Deterrence may be general, or specific to an individual. In some cases, the court may
take into account a person’s intellectual, psychological and medical circumstances.
Such matters may moderate the importance of deterrence in sentencing. 

One of the major obstacles for deterrence in criminal justice is that most offenders
commit crimes without premeditation. People commit crimes in the heat of the
moment. Therefore, they are not thinking about retribution and sentencing at that
moment, so you cannot discourage the offender.

The aim of criminal justice is to educate the greater community. It does this by
demonstrating that all criminal acts will be punished. Authorities will catch all those
who offend and punish them. 

Incapacitation (Incarceration)
In criminal justice, incapacitation is restricting a persons’ freedoms as punishment for
their criminal act. Incapacitation removes offenders from society and restrains them in
a purpose-built facility. This prevents them from committing any further crimes.
Incapacitation cannot rectify past crimes; however, it does prevent future crimes. 
The form of incapacitation will depend on the criminal act. It will also depend on the
seriousness and prevalence of the offence. Incapacitation can take the form of
imprisonment and Community Correction Orders.

The process of a trial and judgement determines the type of incapacitation and
sentences the criminal accordingly. Many offences may not warrant incapacitation
(imprisonment). 

Rehabilitation 
Rehabilitation is a central goal of the judicial and correctional systems. Once a person
has been sentenced and convicted they may be offered rehabilitative programs in a
correctional facility.

These programs aim to identify addictions, injuries, mental illnesses and other
obstacles. Such factors may have contributed to the criminal acts.

Professionals work with the prisoner to correct and redirect them for a positive
outcome. The ultimate aim of rehabilitation programs is to reintegrate prisoners into
the community so they can live there harmoniously and become valuable members of
the community. 

Rehabilitation programs vary in intensity, direction and style of treatment. They can be
a long, costly and exhaustive process. However, the results speak for themselves. 

The courts may take it into account if offenders are rehabilitated before sentencing. 

Restoration 
Restorative justice varies from conventional criminal justice. It highlights that criminal
acts do not only offend against the state but have a lasting effect on families and
communities.

The aim of restorative justice is to repair relationships. It aims for criminals to accept
accountability and feel remorse for their criminal acts. Remorse should be not only for
the criminal acts but for how they affected the victims and members of the
community.