FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 208489. October 9, 2013.]
WILLIAM CHAN, petitioner,vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 9, 2013,which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 208489 (William Chan v. People of the Philippines).— This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 1 and Resolution 2 denying petitioner's appeal of his conviction for two counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22). 3
Petitioner and private respondent Tantoco Enterprises, Inc. entered into a distributorship agreement on the latter's coconut oil products. 4 Petitioner issued two checks — one in the amount of P564,160 dated 16 April 2004 and the other, P581,647 dated 10 April 2004 — as payment for the edible oil, lard and margarine products delivered to him by private respondent. 5 Upon presentation of the checks for payment, they were dishonored for the reason that the account was closed. 6
Private respondent sent a demand letter through registered mail, and petitioner received it personally. 7 His receipt of the demand letter was also confirmed by a telephone conversation between the parties, during which petitioner undertook to take the necessary action to remedy the situation. When no payments were made, private respondent filed a criminal complaint for two counts of violation of B.P. 22 before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Lucena City, Branch 2. IaECcH
On 24 January 2011, the MTCC rendered a Judgment 8 finding petitioner guilty of two counts of violation of B.P. 22 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for six months for each count. He was also ordered to indemnify private respondent in the total amount of P1,145,807 with 6% interest from the filing of the Information until the finality of the decision. The interest of 12% was further imposed starting from the finality of the decision until full payment of the amount due.
Petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City, Branch 57 (RTC), which rendered a Judgment 9 on 20 January 2012 affirming the decision of the MTCC.
Petitioner filed a petition for review before the CA, which affirmed the decision of the RTC with modification. The CA deleted the penalty of imprisonment, and instead increased the fine to twice the total amount indicated on the dishonored checks. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE,the instant Petition for Review is DENIED. The Judgment dated January 20, 2012 of the RTC, Branch 57, Lucena City, in Criminal Case Nos. 2011-01-A and 2011-02-A, finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of B.P. Blg. 22, is AFFIRMED.However, we MODIFY the penalty imposed by deleting the penalty of imprisonment, but increasing the fine to twice the total amount of PhP1,145,807.00, representing the value of the two (2) dishonored checks, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, reckoned from the date of filing of the two (2) Informations until the finality of this decision. The total unpaid amount inclusive of the interest shall, in turn, earn an interest of 12% per annum from the finality of this decision until full payment thereof. In the event of inability of petitioner to pay the fine imposed, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on subsidiary imprisonment shall apply. 10
With his motion for reconsideration denied by the CA, 11 petitioner now comes before us on appeal claiming that he delivered two signed blank checks to private respondent as "security checks," as required under their distributorship agreement. 12 He argues that private respondent entered the dates, the name of the payee and the amounts on the two checks after they failed to come to an agreement on the price of the oil. 13 Allegedly, he prevented the use of the blank checks by closing his account. 14 He points out that no official receipts, sales or commercial invoices, or delivery receipts have been shown by private respondent to prove the transactions. 15 STHDAc
Sec. 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court states that only questions of law may be raised by a party desiring to appeal by certiorari before this Court. Clearly, petitioner fails to appreciate this stringent requirement by arguing before us factual matters that have already been passed upon by the MTCC, the RTC and the CA.
In any case, we find no basis for his claim that blank checks were delivered to private respondent as security checks. Petitioner is insistent that he delivered two signed blank checks to private respondent. These two checks were allegedly the same ones filled up, presented for payment and dishonored.
This allegation crumbles in the face of the Affidavit-Complaint 16 of private respondent dated 4 June 2004 — attached by petitioner to his petition — charging the latter with four counts of violation of B.P. 22 through his issuance of four checks, including the two subject of this petition printed below in boldface, to wit:
|
Check No.
|
Amount
|
Date Issued
|
|
0224322
|
P709,4667
|
April 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
0224313
|
P581,64710
|
April 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
0224314
|
P566,36414
|
April 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
0224315
|
P564,16016
|
April 2004 17
|
The two other counts were raffled to the MTCC of Lucena City, Branch 1. 18 aCcADT
Thus, we find no reversible error on the part of the CA in issuing the assailed Decision and Resolution. However, we modify the rate of interest imposed on the amount due from the finality of this Resolution until full payment.
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No. 799 revised the rate of interest allowed in judgments from 12% to 6%,effective 1 July 2013. Accordingly, we modified the guidelines laid down in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. CA, 19 such that when the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest shall be 6% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction. 20
WHEREFORE,the Decision dated 18 December 2012 and Resolution dated 26 July 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 34750 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION.The interest rate imposed on the amount due, from the finality of this Resolution until full payment, is reduced from 12% to 6% per annum.
SO ORDERED." VILLARAMA, JR.,J.,on leave; LEONEN, J.,acting member per S.O. No. 1545 (Revised) dated September 16, 2013. acADIT
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo,pp. 24-32. The Decision dated 18 December 2012 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) Sixth Division in CA-G.R. CR No. 34750 was penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, with Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Edwin D. Sorongon concurring.
2. Id. at 34, dated 26 July 2013.
3. Bouncing Checks Law.
4. Rollo,p. 25.
5. Id. at 25-26.
6. Id. at 26.
7. Id.
8. Id. at 46-50.
9. Id. at 43-45.
10. Id. at 31-32.
11. Id. at 34.
12. Id. at 11.
13. Id. at 12.
14. Id.
15. Id. at 14-15.
16. Id. at 52-53.
17. Id. at 52.
18. Id. at 65.
19. G.R. No. 97412, 12 July 1994, 234 SCRA 78.
20. Nacar v. Gallery Frames,G.R. No. 189871, 13 August 2013.