Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31MAY ALBINO S. CO, Petitioner, Court of Appeals and People of The Philippines, Respondents

    Uploaded by

    Emanuelle Eyana
    3 views1 page
    The petitioner was convicted of violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 for issuing a check to guarantee a performance obligation. At the time, a Department of Justice circular excluded guarantee checks from the law's scope, but a later circular reversed this stance. The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction, holding that applying the later circular retroactively would be prejudicial since the petitioner relied on the initial exclusion of guarantee checks when issuing the check. As this was a criminal case, all doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Co

    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
    The petitioner was convicted of violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 for issuing a check to guarantee a performance obligation. At the time, a Department of Justice circular excluded guarantee checks from the law's scope, but a later circular reversed this stance. The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction, holding that applying the later circular retroactively would be prejudicial since the petitioner relied on the initial exclusion of guarantee checks when issuing the check. As this was a criminal case, all doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused.

    Copyright:

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

    31MAY ALBINO S. CO, Petitioner, Court of Appeals and People of The Philippines, Respondents

    Uploaded by

    Emanuelle Eyana
    The petitioner was convicted of violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 for issuing a check to guarantee a performance obligation. At the time, a Department of Justice circular excluded guarantee checks from the law's scope, but a later circular reversed this stance. The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction, holding that applying the later circular retroactively would be prejudicial since the petitioner relied on the initial exclusion of guarantee checks when issuing the check. As this was a criminal case, all doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused.

    Copyright:

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

    Albino Co vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 100776.

    October 28, 1993)

    31MAY

    ALBINO S. CO, petitioner,


    vs.
    COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

    Antonio P. Barredo for petitioner.

    The Solicitor General for the people.

    Ponente: NARVASA

    FACTS:

    A criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 was filed by the salvage company against
    petitioner with the Regional Trial Court. The case eventuated in petitioner’s conviction of the crime
    charged on the basis that a check issued merely to guarantee the performance of an obligation is
    nevertheless covered by B.P. Blg. 22. Pending litigation, Ministry of Justice Circular No. 4 (which excludes
    guarantee check from application of B.P. Blg. 22) was subsequently reversed by Ministry Circular No. 12
    which ruled that a check issued merely to guarantee the performance of an obligation is nevertheless
    covered by B.P. Blg. 22. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. There he sought exoneration upon
    the theory that it was reversible error for the Regional Trial Court but the Court of Appeals affirmed his
    conviction.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not Ministry Circular No. 12 dated August 8, 1984 declaring the guarantee check will no
    longer be considered as a valid defense be retroactively applied.

    HELD:

    NO. Decision of the Court of Appeals and RTC were set aside. Criminal prosecution against accused-
    petitioner was dismissed.

    RATIO:

    It would seem that the weight of authority is decidedly in favor of the proposition that the Court’s
    decision of September 21, 1987 in Que v. People, 154 SCRA 160 (1987) that a check issued merely to
    guarantee the performance of an obligation is nevertheless covered by B.P. Blg. 22 — should not be
    given retrospective effect to the prejudice of the petitioner and other persons situated, who relied on
    the official opinion of the Minister of Justice that such a check did not fall within the scope of B.P. Blg. 22.

    This is after all a criminal action all doubts in which, pursuant to familiar, fundamental doctrine, must be
    resolved in favor of the accused. Everything considered, the Court sees no compelling reason why the
    doctrine of mala prohibita should override the principle of prospectivity, and its clear implications as
    herein above set out and discussed, negating criminal liability.

    You might also like