Thursday, September 26, 2019

GO vs. DIMAGIBA (Criminal Law Review 1)

G.R. No. 151876               June 21, 2005
SUSAN GO and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners,
vs.
FERNANDO L. DIMAGIBA, respondent.

FACTS:
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." Dimagiba was subsequently prosecuted for 13 counts of violation of BP 22 under separate Complaints filed with the (MTCC) in Baguio City.

After a joint trial, the MTCC (Branch 4) rendered a Decision convicting the accused in the 13 cases 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 (P1,295,000.00) with legal interest per annum.

Dimagiba made an appeal but the RTC denied the appeal and sustained his conviction. There being no further appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), the RTC issued a Certificate of Finality of the Decision.

Thus, MTCC issued an Order directing the arrest of Dimagiba for the service of his sentence as a result of his conviction. The trial court also issued a Writ of Execution to enforce his civil liability.

Dimagiba filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the MTCC Order. He prayed for the recall of the Order of Arrest and the modification of the final Decision, arguing that the penalty of fine only, instead of imprisonment also, should have been imposed on him. 

MTCC denied the Motion for Reconsideration and directed the issuance of a Warrant of Arrest against Dimagiba, he was arrested and imprisoned for the service of his sentence.

However he filed with the RTC of Baguio City a Petition17 for a writ of habeas corpus. The case was raffled to Branch 5, which scheduled the hearing.

RTC issued an Order directing the immediate release of Dimagiba from confinement and requiring him to pay a fine of P100,000 in lieu of imprisonment.
In justifying its modification of the MTCC Decision, the RTC invoked Vaca v. CA 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.

Petitioner Go filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the RTC Orders but was denied.

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

ISSUE:
(1) Whether the petition for writ of habeas was validly granted.
(2) Whether SC-AC No. 12-2000 can be given retroactive effect on this case.

RULING:
(1) NO.
The writ may not be availed of when the person in custody is under a judicial process or by virtue of a valid judgment. However, as a post-conviction remedy, it may be allowed when, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding, any of the following exceptional circumstances is attendant: (1) there has been a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person; (2) the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or (3) the imposed penalty has been excessive, thus voiding the sentence as to such excess.

While it js true that the petition was anchored with no. 3 exception, it appears that respondent has previously sought the modification of his sentence in a Motion for Reconsideration of the MTCC's Execution Order and in a Motion for the Partial Quashal of the Writ of Execution.36 Both were denied by the MTCC on the ground that it had no power or authority to amend a judgment issued by the RTC.

The court ruled that his Petition for a writ of habeas corpus was clearly an attempt to reopen a case that had already become final and executory. Such an action deplorably amounted to forum shopping. Respondent should have resorted to the proper, available remedy instead of instituting a different action in another forum.


(2) NO. 
The following alternative penalties are imposable under BP 22: (1) imprisonment of not less than 30 days, but not more than one year; (2) a fine of not less or more than double the amount of the check, a fine that shall in no case exceed P200,000; or (3) both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court.

SC-AC No. 12-2000, as clarified by SC-AC No. 13-2001, established a rule of preference in imposing the above penalties. When the circumstances of the case clearly indicate good faith or a clear mistake of fact without taint of negligence, the imposition of a fine alone may be considered as the preferred penalty. The determination of the circumstances that warrant the imposition of a fine rests upon the trial judge only.

In the present case, the MTCC of Baguio City had full knowledge of all relevant circumstances from which respondent's conviction and sentence were based. The penalty imposed was well within the confines of the law. Upon appeal, the conviction was sustained by RTC-Branch 4 of Baguio City. Eventually, the Decision attained finality. Hence, RTC-Branch 5 did not have the jurisdiction to modify the lawful judgment in the guise of granting a writ of habeas corpus.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and the assailed Orders NULLIFIED. Respondent's Petition for habeas corpus is hereby DENIED.

No comments:

Post a Comment