Aguire vs People

8/19/2019 Aguire vs People

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aguire-vs-people 1/6

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 144142. August 23, 2001]

YOLANDA AGUIRRE, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, respondent .

D E I S I O N

!APUNAN, J ."

Petitioner Yolanda Aguirre filed the instant petition for review on certiorari seeking to

reverse and set aside the Deision! dated Nove"#er $%! &'''! of the (ourt of Appeals )(A* in

(A+,-R- (R No- $./01 whih affir"ed her onvition for violation of the 2atasang Pa"#ansa2lg- $$ )2-P- 2lg- $$*-3&4 She likewise assails the Resolution! dated 5a6 0&! $...! of the appellate

ourt den6ing her "otion for reonsideration-

The Regional Trial (ourt! 2ranh $. of (e#u (it6 found petitioner guilt6 #e6ond reasona#ledou#t of violating 2-P- 2lg- $$ upon three separate infor"ations filed against her- 78ept for the

dates and the a"ounts involved! these infor"ations unifor"l6 read as follows9

That on or a#out the $nd da6 of Fe#ruar6 &''0 )(2:+0$&;/*! /th da6 of Fe#ruar6

)(2:+0$&;%*! and on the 'th da6 of Fe#ruar6 &''1 )(2:+0$&;1*! and for so"eti"e

prior and su#se<uent thereto! in the (it6 of (e#u! Philippines! and within the

=urisdition of this >onora#le (ourt! the said aused! knowing at the ti"e of issue ofthe hek he?she does not have suffiient funds in or redit with the drawee #ank for

the pa6"ent of suh hek in full upon its present"ent! with deli#erate intent! with

intent of gain and of ausing da"age! did then and there issue or draw 2PI Fa"il6

2ank (hek No- %&.$%%0 dated Fe#ruar6 $! &''0 in the a"ount of P/.!...-.. )(2:+

0$&;/*! 2PI Fa"il6 2ank (hek No- %&.$%%/ dated Fe#ruar6 /! &''0 in the a"ount

of P%.!...-3..4 )(2:+0$&;%*! and 2PI Fa"il6 2ank (hek No- %&.$%%; dated

Fe#ruar6 '! &''0 in the a"ount of P$$%!;.0-&. )(2:+0$&;1*! all pa6a#le to Dinah

@ei whih hek was issued in pa6"ent of an o#ligation of said aused! #ut when

presented with said #ank! the sa"e was dishonored for reason of aount losed and

despite notie and de"ands "ade to redee" or "ake good said hek! said aused

failed and refused and up to the present ti"e still fails and refuses to do so! to the

da"age and pre=udie of said Dinah @ei in the a"ounts of P/.!...-..! P%.!...-..

and P$$%!;.0-&. respetivel6! Philippine urren6-

(ONTRARY TO A@-3$4

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/aug2001/144142.htm#_edn1






At her arraign"ent! petitioner pleaded not guilt6 to all the harges- Sine the6 involved

su#stantiall6 si"ilar fats! the ases were onsolidated- Trial ensued- The proseution presented

Dinah @ei! the private o"plainant! who #asiall6 testified that she knew petitioner #eause she)private o"plainant* used to suppl6 rie to petitioner- So"e ti"e in &''$! petitioner and private

o"plainant had a transation where petitioner would #u6 rie fro" private o"plainant in the

a"ount of P1..!...-..- The purhase prie was pa6a#le #6 petitioner within fifteen )&%* da6s- In pa6"ent thereof! petitioner issued to private o"plainant the su#=et heks9 2PI Fa"il6 2ank

(hek No- %&.$%%; )78hi#it A*! 2PI Fa"il6 2ank (hek No- %&.$%%/ )78hi#it 2* and 2PI

Fa"il6 2ank (hek No- %&.$%%0 )78hi#it (*-304

@hen private o"plainant presented the heks for pa6"ent! however! the6 weredishonored- The #ak of the heks eah #ore the sta"p aount losed )78hi#its A+&! 2+& and

(+&! respetivel6*-Private o"plainant i""ediatel6 went to petitioner to infor" her a#out the

dishonor and de"anded that she pa6 the a"ounts of the heks- Despite her pro"ise! petitioner never paid private o"plainant-3/4

@hen it was her turn to addue evidene! petitioner ontinuousl6 "oved for the

postpone"ent of the hearings- Thereafter! the trial ourt delared petitioner to have waived her right to present evidene in her defense- On Bul6 &%! &''1! the trial ourt then rendered =udg"ent

finding petitioner guilt6 of violating 2-P- 2lg- $$- The dispositive portion of the trial ourts

deision reads9

@>7R7FOR7! in view of all the foregoing pre"ises! =udg"ent is here#6 rendered

finding aused YOANDA A,:IRR7 guilt6 #e6ond reasona#le dou#t of the offense

of violation of 2atas Pa"#ansa 2ilang $$ and said aused is here#6 sentene 3si4 to

suffer the i"prison"ent of separate one )&* 6ear in (2:+0$&;/! and another separate

one )&* 6ear i"prison"ent in (2:+0$&;% and another separate one )&* 6ear in (2:+

0$&;1-

Aused is here#6 ordered to pa6 private o"plainant! DINA> @7I! the following

a"ounts9

)&* The su" of P/.!...-.. in (2:+0$&;/! the su" of P%.!...-.. in (2:+0$&;%! and the su"

of P$$%!;.0-&. in (2:+0$&;1 plus legal interest of 1C per annu" thereon respetivel6 fro"

the filing of said infor"ation until full6 paid

)$* The su" of P%!...-.. as attorne6s fees

SO ORD7R7D-3%4

Petitioner appealed her onvition to the (A- In essene! she lai"s that she was deprived of

due proess when the trial ourt delared that her right to present evidene as dee"ed waived!

forfeited and a#andoned- The appellate ourt! however! found no "erit in the appeal- The (Adelared that petitioner was not deprived of due proess #eause she was given a"ple

opportunit6 to present her evidene- The (A thus affir"ed petitioners onvition9









@>7R7FOR7! finding no error in the deision appealed fro"! the sa"e is

here#6 AFFIR#ED in toto- 314

>er "otion for reonsideration having #een denied! petitioner now o"es to this (ourtsolel6 alleging that9

T>7 >ONORA27 (O:RT OF APP7AS! &0T> DIVISION! 7RR7D IN

AFFIR5IN, 7N TOTO T>7 D7(ISION OF T>7 R7,IONA TRIA (O:RT! 2r-

$.! (72: (ITY! IN D7(ARIN, T>7 >7R7IN P7TITION7R TO >AV7

@AIV7D! FORF7IT7D AND A2ANDON7D >7R RI,>T TO

ADD:(7?PR7S7NT 7VID7N(7-3;4

Petitioners ontention does not persuade-

(ontrar6 to petitioners lai"! the reords show that she was given a"ple opportunit6 #6 the

trial ourt to present her evidene- As found #6 the (A9

A areful review of the reords of the ase evidentl6 show that the trial ourt dul6

afforded aused+appellant her right to present evidene- The trial ourt in view of the

a#sene of either appellant or her ounsel granted the "otions of her ounsel for

ontinuane to ena#le the defense to present its evidene- The proseution rested its

ase as earl6 as April $.! &''% #ut aused+appellant ontinuousl6 re<uested

postpone"ent of hearing- It was onl6 on Fe#ruar6 '! &''1! when the trial ourt was

onstrained to delare the right of the aused to present evidene as dee"ed waived!

forfeited or a#andoned due to the non+appearane of appellant or her

ounsel- Aused+appellant did not file an6 "otion or pleading to have said order

reonsidered- As aptl6 pointed out #6 the Soliitor ,eneral! if it were true thatappellant wanted to present her evidene! she should have taken advantage of the

a"ple opportunit6 to present! to #e heard and to testif6 in open ourt with the

assistane of her ounsel- She annot now lai" that she was denied her right to #e

present and present her evidene-3E4

The essential re<uire"ents of due proess in this =urisdition are well+esta#lished9

)&* There "ust #e a ourt or tri#unal lothed with =udiial authorit6 to hear and deter"ine the"atter #efore it

)$* Burisdition "ust #e lawfull6 a<uired over the person of the defendant or propert6 whih is

the su#=et of the proeeding

)0* The defendant "ust #e given an opportunit6 to #e heard and

)/* Budg"ent "ust #e rendered upon lawful hearing-3'4

Appl6ing the a#ove test! the (ourt finds that petitioner in this ase annot feign denial of due proess #eause she had #een given the opportunit6 to present her side-3&.4














The lia#ilit6 of petitioner for violation of 2-P- 2lg- $$ had #een dul6 esta#lished #6 the trial

ourt in this wise9

After a areful and =udiious stud6 of the evidene addued in this ase! the

proseution was a#le to prove the guilt of the aused #e6ond reasona#le dou#t for the

o""ission of violations of 2atas Pa"#ansa 2ilang $$ in the a#ove+entitled ri"inalases- It has #een dul6 esta#lished that aused Yolanda Aguirre issued those three )0*

2PI Fa"il6 (heks )"arked as 78hi#its A! 2 and (* in pa6"ent of her o#ligation to

pa6 the rie whih private o"plainant sold to her- @hen presented for pa6"ent all of

said heks were all dishonored for reason of aounts losed as shown in the

validations at the #ak of said heks pointing to the fat that the sa"e were

dishonored for aount losed )"arked as 78hi#its A+&! 2+& and (+&*- Despite

de"ands fro" the aused #6 private o"plainant! Dinah @ei! for the for"er to

replenish said dishonored heks! the said aused si"pl6 pro"ised to pa6 her said

a"ounts overed #6 those #u" heks #ut she did not pa6 Dinah @ei after all-

(learl6 then the aused in issuing those heks whih onse<uentl6 #ouned or

dishonored for reason of their having aounts losed violated 2atas Pa"#ansa 2ilang

$$ whih provides a"ong other things9

Setion &- Checks without sufficient funds. Any person who makes or draws and

issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he

does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of

such check in full upon its presentment,which check is subsequently dishonored by the

drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit xxx, shall be punished by

imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one (1 year or by a fineof not less than but not more than double the amount of the check which fine shall in

no case exceed !wo "undred thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at

the discretion of the court. xxx.

And the Supre"e (ourt had ruled and held that what the law punishes is the issuane

of a #ouning hek not the purpose for whih it was issued nor the ter"s and

onditions relating to its issuane- The "ere at of issuing a worthless hek is malum

prohibitum- )(ru vs- (ourt of Appeals! $00 S(RA 0.&*- All the ele"ents! therefore!

of the violation of 2atas Pa"#ansa 2lg- $$ are all present in the instant ri"inal ases

and for whih the aused is solel6 lia#le! to wit9 #a$ the making, drawing andissuance of any check to apply to account or for value% #&$ the knowledge of the

maker, drawer or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or

credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its

presentment% and #'$ subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for

insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer,



without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment. (avarro vs. Court of

Appeals, &') *C+A '-.

Signifiantl6! petitioner does not <uestion the foregoing findings and onlusions of the trialourt- In an6 ase! the (ourt finds no ogent reason to deviate fro" the settled rule that fatual

findings of the trial ourt are #inding on the Supre"e (ourt when supported #6 su#stantialevidene on reord and arr6 "ore weight when affir"ed #6 the appellate ourt! as in this ase-3&&4

>owever! there is need to "odif6 the penalt6 i"posed on petitioner in view of the (ourtsrulings in aca vs. Court of Appeals3&$4 and i" vs- People of the Philippines 3&04 that9

3I4t would #est serve the ends of ri"inal =ustie if in fi8ing the penalt6 within the

range of disretion allowed #6 &! par- &! the sa"e philosoph6 underl6ing the

Indeter"inate Sentene aw is o#served! na"el6! that of redee"ing valua#le hu"an

"aterial and preventing unneessar6 deprivation of personal li#ert6 and eono"i

usefulness with due regard to the protetion of the soial order-3&/4

A#sent showing that petitioner ated in #ad faith! the deletion of the penalt6 of

i"prison"ent in this ase is proper- The i"position of fine e<uivalent to the value of the su#=et

heks is an appropriate penalt6 to #e i"posed on petitioner- :nder 2-P- 2lg- $$ &! par- &! the

fine that "a6 #e i"posed is not less than! #ut not "ore than dou#le! the a"ount of the hek whih fine shall in no ase e8eed two hundred thousand pesos- Thus! in lieu of i"prison"ent!

petitioner shall pa6 the fine for eah violation in the a"ounts of P/.!...-.. )(ri"- (ase No-

(2:+0$&;/*! P%.!...-.. )(ri"- (ase )(ri"- (ase No- (2:+0$&;%* and P$..!...-.. )(ri"-(ase No- 0$&;1*! respetivel6-

$HEREFORE! the deision of the (ourt of Appeals in (A+,-R- (R No- $./01 is

AFFIR57D with "odifiation that the sentene of i"prison"ent is deleted- Instead! petitioner is

ORD7R7D to pa6 the fine for eah violation in the a"ounts of P/.!...-.. )(ri"- (ase No-(2:+0$&;/*! P%.!...-.. )(ri"- (ase No- (2:+0$&;%* and P$..!...-.. )(ri"- (ase No- (2:+

0$&;1*! respetivel6-

SO ORDERED.

/avide, 0r., C.0., (Chairman, uno, ardo, and 2nares3*antiago, 00., onur-

3&4 2ouning (heks aw-

3$4 RT( Deision! p- & +ollo! p- /$-

304 4d., at $ +ollo! p- /0-

3/4 4d -

3%4 4d -! at 0 +ollo! p- //-

314 (A Deision! p- 0 +ollo! p- 00-

3;4 Petition! p- %! +ollo! p- $%-






http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/aug2001/144142.htm#_ednref1




















3E4 See Note 1-

3'4 People vs- Ses#reo! 0&/ S(RA E;! &.; )&'''*-

3&.4 A"ion vs- (hingson! 0.& S(RA 1&/! 1$/ )&'''*-

3&&4 ,alang vs- (ourt of Appeals! 0$/ S(RA &0'! &/0 )$...*-

3&$4 $'E S(RA 1%1 )&''E*-3&04 ,-R- No- &0..0E! Septe"#er &E! $...-

3&/4 See Note &$! p- 11/-
















Documents

Aguire vs People