SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 255651. April 26, 2021.]
JUVELYN J. GUIAO, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 26 April 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 255651 (Juvelyn J. Guiao v. People of the Philippines). — The Court resolves to: (1) GRANT the motion of petitioner Juvelyn J. Guiao (Guiao) for extension of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari; and (2) INFORM Guiao that she or her authorized representative may personally claim from the Cash Disbursement and Collection Division of this Court the excess payment of the prescribed legal fees in the amount of P2,000.00 (P700.00 for legal fees, P300.00 for deposit for sheriff's fee and P1,000.00 for SAJ) under O.R. No. 0290243 dated March 3, 2021.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court further resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the Decision 2 dated February 27, 2020 and the Resolution 3 dated December 7, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 42618 for failure of Guiao to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in finding her GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22). 4 Accordingly, she is sentenced to pay a fine in the amount of P200,000.00 for each count. However, the imposition of legal interest is DELETED, considering that there is no amount due to private complainant, as the latter filed a separate civil complaint prior to the filing of the instant criminal cases.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the prosecution was able to prove all the elements 5 of the crime charged, considering that Guiao admitted to issuing the subject checks which were dishonored for the reasons 'drawn against insufficient fund' and 'account closed' respectively, and that she was duly notified of such dishonor, and yet failed to make good of the value of the said checks. Since there is no indication that the Regional Trial Court and CA overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds no reason to deviate from their factual findings. 6 However, and as may be gleaned above, there is a need to adjust the fines imposed against Guiao, considering that BP 22 prescribes that a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check, which shall in no case exceed P200,000.00, may be imposed. 7 Guiao is, accordingly, meted a fine of P200,000.00 for each count. Furthermore, the award of interest is deleted considering that what was pursued herein is just the criminal aspect of BP 22, as the civil aspect thereof was filed prior to the filing of the instant criminal cases.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Petition for Review on Certiorari dated February 8, 2021; rollo, pp. 9-22.
2.Id. at 61-74. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz with Associate Justices Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and Perpetua Susana T. Atal-Paño, concurring.
3.Id. at 76-77.
4. Entitled 'AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR DRAWING AND ISSUANCE OF A CHECK WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR CREDIT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,' approved on April 3, 1979.
5. 'To sustain a conviction of violation of BP 22, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt three (3) essential elements, namely: 1. the accused makes, draws or issues any check to apply to account or for value; 2. the accused knows at the time of the issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, drawee bank for payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and 3. the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or it would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reasons, ordered the bank to stop payment.' (Ongkingco v. People, G.R. No. 217787, September 18, 2019).
6. See Cahulogan v. People, 828 Phil. 742, 749 (2018), citing Peralta v. People, 817 Phil. 554, 563 (2017), further citing People v. Matibag, 757 Phil. 286, 293 (2015).
7. 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 (30) 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.
xxx xxx xxx