SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 255459. June 30, 2021.]
IMELDA CORPUZ DALLO, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND POCHOLO BAQUIRAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated30 June 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 255459 (Imelda Corpuz Dallo vs. People of the Philippines and Pocholo Baquiran).— It appearing that private respondent Pocholo Baquiran's Motion for Leave of Court to File and Admit the Herein Incorporated Manifestation and Motion to Inform the Court that Petitioner is Engaged in Forum-Shopping has not yet been received by the Court as of June 14, 2021, the Court NOTES WITHOUT ACTION petitioner Imelda Corpuz Dallo's (petitioner) comment 1 thereon dated May 31, 2021.
This is a petition for review on certiorari2 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner challenging the Decision 3 dated September 15, 2020 and Resolution 4 dated January 26, 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 161772 which affirmed the Decision 5 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Vigan City, Ilocos Sur, Branch 20 dismissing her petition for certiorari6 of the Decision 7 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Vigan City.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
The case at bench involves a criminal complaint 8 for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP Blg. 22) filed against herein petitioner for the issuance of Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) Check No. 0197228 drawn against the latter's account in the amount of Four Hundred Eighty-Five Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Pesos (Php485,650.00) which was later dishonored by the drawee bank.
After trial on the merits, the MTCC issued a Notice 9 to petitioner's former defense counsel setting the promulgation of judgment on September 29, 2017. On September 26, 2017, said counsel moved for the resetting of the promulgation to November 3, 2017. 10 On September 29, 2017, the MTCC issued a Notice 11 resetting the promulgation to October 6, 2017 instead of the requested date. Considering the defense counsel's conflict in schedule, he again moved for the cancellation of the promulgation on October 6, 2017. 12 However, on said date, despite the absence of the accused and her counsel, the MTCC proceeded with the promulgation of its Decision 13 dated September 18, 2017, the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, and in view of all the foregoing, this Court finds the accused, Imelda Dallo y Corpuz, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for [sic] Violation of BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 22 and hereby sentences her to suffer the penalty of a FINEdouble the amount of Four Hundred Eighty-Five Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Pesos (Php485,650.00) under BPI Check No. 0197228. Accused is likewise ordered to pay the face value of the check with legal interest upon the finality of this Decision and to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the cost of suit.
SO ORDERED. 14
Said Decision was received by petitioner through her former defense counsel on October 12, 2017. On October 18, 2017, said counsel filed a Notice of Appeal 15 via LBC which was received by the MTCC on October 20, 2017. However, the appeal fee was paid only on October 26, 2017. 16
The MTCC initially gave due course to the Notice of Appeal 17 but later set aside the same 18 upon the prosecution's motion for reconsideration 19 due to petitioner's late payment of docket fees which rendered the Notice of Appeal defective. Petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration 20 having been denied, 21 petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari22 before the RTC, which, in turn, dismissed the petition for lack of merit in its Decision 23 dated November 7, 2018. After the RTC denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration 24 in its Order 25 dated March 25, 2019, she appealed before the CA, which ultimately denied her appeal in its Decision 26 dated September 15, 2020 and her subsequent motion for reconsideration in its Resolution 27 dated January 26, 2021. Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari.
The main issue for resolution is whether the CA erred in denying petitioner's appeal and affirming the decision of the RTC which dismissed her petition for certiorari.
The Court resolves to DENY the petition.
It is undisputed that despite notice, petitioner and her former defense counsel failed to appear during the promulgation of the decision of the trial court convicting her of violation of BP Blg. 22. Despite this, petitioner was not left without a remedy. Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court 28 provides that within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment, the accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies. However, instead of surrendering and filing a motion for leave to explain her unjustified absence, she filed a defective Notice of Appeal, resulting in her loss of standing before the court.
It is an established doctrine that notice to counsel is notice to client. 29 Petitioner's claim that she should not be bound by her counsel's gross negligence is bereft of merit. As correctly observed by the CA, for a claim of gross negligence on the part of counsel to prosper, nothing short of clear abandonment of a client's cause must be shown and such gross negligence should not be accompanied by the client's own negligence. 30 By merely relying on the reassurances of her lawyer, petitioner cannot be said to have been diligent in monitoring her case. A litigant bears the responsibility of monitoring the status of his case, for no prudent party leaves the fate of his case entirely in the hands of his lawyer. 31
The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component of due process. It is a mere statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. 32 For failure to observe the requirements under Section 6, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, 33 petitioner is deemed to have waived and foreclosed her right to appeal. Consequently, the decision of the MTCC became final and executory.
However, the Court observes that the fine of double the amount of Php485,650.00 which was imposed by the MTCC in its decision is not in accord with law. Section 1 of BP Blg. 22 provides for the imposable penalty, to wit:
Section 1. 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 or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment, shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year or by a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check which fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. (Emphasis supplied.)
This Court's Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 reiterates the above provision of law and emphasizes that the fine shall in no case exceed Php200,000.00. CAIHTE
Clearly, the fine of Nine Hundred Seventy-One Thousand Three Hundred Pesos (Php971,300.00) is nearly fivefold the maximum which not only violates the unequivocal wording of BP Blg. 22 but also runs afoul of the constitutional prohibition on the imposition of excessive fines. 34
In a catena of cases, we modified erroneous penalties notwithstanding the fact that the decision of the trial court had become final and executory, regardless of the accused's failure to perfect an appeal on his judgment of conviction. In People v. Barro, 35 we modified the penalty imposed upon one of the accused therein even if he failed to file a notice of appeal on account of his escape from confinement. In Estrada v. People, 36 we also modified the penalty imposed upon the accused even if he was absent during the promulgation of judgment and was arrested two years later. In Rigor v. The Superintendent, New Bilibid Prison, 37 we rectified the penalty imposed even if therein petitioner failed to appeal since the trial court erroneously added one (1) day to the maximum period of arresto mayor, thus, bringing it outside the range of said penalty. In Sumbilla v. Matrix Finance Corporation, 38 which involves facts similar to the case at bench, therein petitioner was likewise convicted for six counts of violation of BP Blg. 22 but failed to perfect an appeal. However, we saw fit to modify the penalty imposed despite the judgment having become final and executory because the trial court incorrectly computed the fine per count using the total face value of all six dishonored checks, instead of properly imposing a fine per count of double the amount of the face value of the dishonored check subject of each count.
In People v. Gatward, 39 we pronounced that by merely modifying the penalty imposed, we are neither reopening the case nor saying that there was error in judgment. In Almuete v. People, 40 we held that while an erroneous judgment may still be a valid one, a judgment which ordains a penalty which does not exist in the catalogue of penalties or which is an impossible version of that in the roster of lawful penalties is necessarily void since the error goes into the very essence of the penalty and does not merely arise from the misapplication thereof. Corollarily, such a penalty can never become final and executory and it is within the duty and inherent power of the Court to have it conformable with law. Verily, a sentence which imposes a penalty in excess of the maximum amount that the court is authorized by law to impose is void for want or excess of jurisdiction as to the excess. 41 Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the trial court in the case at bench is void as to the excess fine of Php771,300.00.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision dated September 15, 2020 and Resolution dated January 26, 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 161772 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION only insofar as the penalty of fine is concerned. The fine imposed by the trial court is reduced to Php200,000.00.
SO ORDERED." (J. Lopez, J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. To be attached to rollo.
2.Rollo, pp. 10-25.
3. Penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas and Walter S. Ong; id. at 254-259.
4.Id. at 269.
5. Penned by Judge Marita Bernales Balloguing; id. at 181-189.
6.Id. at 28-41.
7. Penned by Presiding Judge Francisco A. Ante, Jr.; id. at 59-69.
8.Id. at 44-45.
9.Id. at 51.
10. See Urgent Motion to Cancel Hearing on September 29, 2017; id. at 52-53.
11.Id. at 54.
12. See Urgent Motion to Cancel Hearing on October 6, 2017; id. at 55-58.
13.Id. at 59-69.
14.Id. at 69.
15.Id. at 70.
16.Id. at 71.
17. See MTCC Order dated October 26, 2017; id. at 72.
18. See MTCC Order dated November 3, 2017; id. at 82.
19.Id. at 73-81.
20.Id. at 83-85.
21. See MTCC Joint Resolution dated April 17, 2018; id. at 90-91.
22.Id. at 28-41.
23.Id. at 181-189.
24.Id. at 190-194.
25. Penned by Judge Marita B. Balloguing; id. at 203-204.
26.Id. at 254-259.
27.Id. at 269.
28. RULES OF COURT, Rule 120, §6. Promulgation of judgment. — x x x
If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available in these rules against the judgment and the court shall order his arrest. Within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment, however, the accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies. He shall state the reasons for his absence at the scheduled promulgation and if he proves that his absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice.
29.Manaya v. Alabang Country Club, Inc., 552 Phil. 226, 233 (2007).
30. See In Re: The Writ of Habeas Corpus for Michael Labrador Abellana v. Hon. Paredes, G.R. No. 232006, July 10, 2019.
31.Torrecampo v. National Labor Relations Commission, 768 Phil. 348, 354 (2015).
32.Ang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 238203, September 3, 2020.
33. RULES OF COURT, Rule 122, §6. When appeal to be taken. — An appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the final order appealed from. This period for perfecting an appeal shall be suspended from the time a motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed until notice of the order overruling the motion shall have been served upon the accused or his counsel at which time the balance of the period begins to run.
34. CONST., art. III, §19 (1).
35. 392 Phil. 857, 875-876 (2000).
36. 505 Phil. 339, 354-357 (2005).
37. 458 Phil. 561, 566-568 (2003).
38. G.R. No. 197582, June 29, 2015, 762 Phil. 130 (2015).
39. 335 Phil. 441 (1997).
40. 706 Phil. 166 (2013).
41.Cruz v. Director of Prisons, 17 Phil. 269, 272-273 (1910).