People v. Spouses Go

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 191564. September 14, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, complainant, vs.SPOUSES LORENZO AND VIVIEN GO, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 14, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 191564 — People of the Philippines v. Spouses Lorenzo and Vivien Go

The Case

The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), assails the following dispositions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 106284 entitled People of the Philippines v. Judge Carlito A. Corpuz, Presiding Judge Branch II, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, San Fernando, La Union, and Spouses Lorenzo and Vivien Go:

1) Decision1 dated November 5, 2009 upholding the authority of Judge Carlito A. Corpuz to acquit respondent Spouses Lorenzo and Vivien Go of all twenty (20) counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22); and

2) Resolution2 dated March 9, 2010 denying reconsideration. HTcADC

Antecedents

On different dates, twenty (20) Informations were filed against Spouses Vivien and Lorenzo Go (Spouses Go) for violation of BP 22. Ten (10) of these Informations 3 were raffled to the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC)-Branch I, San Fernando City, La Union then presided by Judge Eugenio A. Dacumos (Judge Dacumos) while the other ten (10), 4 to the MTCC-Branch II, San Fernando City, La Union under Judge Carlito A. Corpuz (Judge Corpuz).

In the proceedings before Branch I, the prosecution sought to establish that in 1996, Spouses Go obtained a loan from La Union Fortune Realty and Holdings Corporation in the amount of P4,075,000.00 with three percent (3%) interest per month. By letter dated January 18, 2000, Spouses Go requested to reduce the interest rate to 1.5%. In another letter dated July 5, 2001, Lorenzo Go also requested to condone the accrued charges from March 15 to May 15, 2001 and suspend the subsequent charges so that he and Vivien may start gradually paying their principal loan. 5

Between May and July 2001, Spouses Go issued twenty (20) checks in partial payment of their obligation. Upon presentment, however, the checks were dishonored by the drawee banks for reason "Account Closed." La Union, through its President Rodolfo Tiu, notified Spouses Go of the dishonor and demanded payment within five (5) days from notice. But Spouses Go failed to pay, prompting La Union to charge the former with violations of BP 22. 6

For their part, Spouses Go pleaded overpayment. 7 They claimed to have already paid a total of P11,854,976.31 allegedly based on their accounting sheet. 8

After hearing on the merits, Branch I deemed the cases submitted for decision.

Meantime, on September 18, 2006, Spouses Go moved to consolidate all twenty (20) cases before Branch II. La Union objected on ground that the presentation of evidence by both parties had already been completed in the cases before Branch I and the same were in fact already deemed submitted for decision. La Union argued the belated consolidation of these cases before Branch II would infringe its right to speedy disposition of its cases. 9

By Order dated April 19, 2007, Branch II denied the motion for consolidation and proceeded to hear the other ten (10) cases against Spouses Go. 10 There, Spouses Go adopted the same evidence they presented before Branch I.

Ruling of Branch I

By Joint Decision 11 dated August 23, 2007, Branch I rendered a verdict of conviction, viz.:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the accused SPS. LORENZO GO and VIVIEN GO "GUILTY" beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of four (4) counts of Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 as charged in CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 39670, 39673, 39674, & 39677 and hereby sentences them to jointly and solidarily to pay a fine of Php200,000.00 in each case with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the private complainant RODOLFO A. TIU the amount representing the value of the checks with interest at 1.5% a month from date of demand until fully paid plus costs.

In CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 39665, 39666, 39668, 39765, 39767[,] & 39770[,] the [trial] court finds that accused VIVIEN GO "GUILTY" beyond reasonable doubt for six (6) counts of Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 as charged in the Informations and hereby sentences her to pay a fine as follows:

a) CRIMINAL CASE NO. 39665 — Php20,000.00;

b) CRIMINAL CASE NO. 39666 — Php20,000.00;

c) CRIMINAL CASE NO. 39668 — Php20,000.00;

d) CRIMINAL CASE NO. 39765 — Php20,000.00;

e) CRIMINAL CASE NO. 39767 — Php20,000.00;

f) CRIMINAL CASE NO. 39770 — Php20,000.00.

With subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the private complainant RODOLFO A. TIU the amount representing the value of the checks with interest at 1.5% a month from date of demand until fully paid plus costs.

SO ORDERED. 12

Branch I held that Spouses Go failed to prove payment, much less, overpayment. It emphasized the fact that Tiu had retained possession of the dishonored checks, indicating that the same were still unpaid. It nevertheless reduced the interest rate of 3% to 1.5% per month.

On August 31, 2007, then Presiding Judge Dacumos retired. 13

On September 12, 2007, Spouses Go moved to reconsider the verdict of conviction. The branch clerk of court of Branch I referred the motion to the pairing judge of Branch I, Judge Corpuz of Branch II. 14

On December 4, 2007, Hon. Judge Manuel Aquino (Judge Aquino) assumed the office of Presiding Judge of Branch I. 15 The motion for reconsideration was referred to him but he declined and referred it back to Judge Corpuz (Branch II) as the latter allegedly was already conversant with the cases. 16

Ruling of Branch II

By Joint Decision 17 dated April 22, 2008, Branch II acquitted Spouses Go of all twenty (20) counts of violation of BP 22 — those raffled to his sala and those on reconsideration before Branch I which were also referred to him in his capacity as pairing judge of Branch I. The trial court essentially gave credence to Spouses Go's defense that they had already paid P11,854,976.31 to La Union. On the other hand, Tiu allegedly failed to present his own computation of Spouses Go's supposed remaining obligation. In fact, he could not even recall the date of the transaction, the amounts of the principal obligation already settled, and interests already paid. All he offered was his bare general denial of payment. aScITE

Branch II also held that the stipulated interest of 3% per month was so unconscionable that even after Spouses Go had already paid P11,854,976.31, their principal obligation remained the same. Thus, in accordance with Eastern Shipping Lines v. Court of Appeals, 18 Branch II reduced the interest rate to twelve percent (12%) per annum reckoned from the filing of the criminal cases in 1996 until 2001. Applying this reduced rate, Spouses Go would have only been liable to La Union for P6,520,000.00, thus:

 

Principal	Php4,075,000.00 x 12%
	––––––––––––––
	Php489,000.00 x 5 years
	––––––––––––––
Total Interest	Php2,445,000.00
Add	Php4,075,000.00
	––––––––––––––
Total amount to be paid	Php6,520,000.00 19

 

As it was, Spouses Go paid so much more, P11,854,976.31. Since they even overpaid by P5,334,976.31, they cannot be held criminally or civilly liable. Branch II ruled further that the verdict of acquittal was without prejudice to a separate action for refund of overpayment Spouses Go may initiate.

La Union moved for reconsideration but the same got denied by Order 20 dated September 17, 2008.

Proceedings before the Court of Appeals

The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) thereafter sought to annul the verdict of acquittal before the Court of Appeals via Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. It charged Judge Corpuz with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction for rendering the verdict of acquittal. It faulted Judge Corpuz for interfering in the disposition of the earlier ten (10) cases already decided by Branch I and for taking cognizance thereof notwithstanding Judge Aquino's assumption of office. The OSG likewise asked the Court of Appeals to review the factual findings of the trial court.

Dispositions of the Court of Appeals

Under Decision 21 dated November 5, 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that there could be no judicial interference to speak of since the Joint Decision dated August 23, 2007 penned by Judge Dacumos of Branch I had yet to attain finality when Judge Corpuz of Branch II rendered the Joint Decision dated April 22, 2008. The Court of Appeals declined to review the factual basis of the verdict of acquittal on ground of double jeopardy. It further emphasized that Judge Corpuz did not commit improper judicial interference when he resolved, on motion for reconsideration, the ten (10) cases earlier decided by Judge Dacumos, following the latter's retirement. To repeat, these were referred to him following the retirement of Judge Dacumos and considering that he (Judge Corpuz) was the pairing judge of Judge Dacumos during the latter's incumbency. Note, too, that after Judge Aquino got appointed to Branch I (vice Judge Dacumos), the ten (10) cases were turned over to him but he declined since according to him, it would better serve the ends of justice if Judge Corpuz, being already conversant with the cases, should resolve them instead. More, to allow different judges to handle the two (2) sets of interrelated cases would result in an absurd situation — it may result in conflicting decisions involving the same parties and transactions. 22

The Court of Appeals denied reconsideration by Resolution 23 dated March 9, 2010.

The Present Petition

The People 24 now seeks affirmative relief from the Court and prays that the assailed dispositions of the Court of Appeals be reversed, and the verdict of acquittal, nullified.

In their Comment, 25 Spouses Go defend the dispositions of the appellate court. For one, Judge Corpuz did not interfere with the affairs of Branch I when he penned the verdict of acquittal since the verdict of conviction in Branch I had yet to attain finality. For another, consolidation was proper since the cases involved the same parties and the same transactions. At any rate, their acquittal was proper since they sufficiently proved overpayment.

Issue

Did Judge Corpuz have authority to rule on Spouses Go's reconsideration against the verdict of conviction rendered by Judge Dacumos?

Ruling

To begin with, the People is not asking here to review the factual findings of the trial court for the purpose of reversing the verdict of acquittal. Rather, the People is raising an issue of jurisdiction pertaining to the authority of Branch II or Judge Corpuz to take cognizance of the ten earlier cases on motion for reconsideration and resolved them together with the remaining ten cases raffled to his sala. Clearly, this is not a species of double jeopardy.

Let us go back to the events leading to the rendition of the assailed Joint Decision dated April 22, 2008 by Judge Corpuz.

La Union filed a complaint against Spouses Go for twenty (20) counts of violation of BP 22. Ten (10) of these cases were raffled off to Branch I presided by Judge Dacumos while the rest, to Branch II under Judge Corpuz. After the trial, Judge Dacumos rendered a verdict of conviction against Spouses Go on August 23, 2007. Spouses Go timely moved for reconsideration but Judge Dacumos had already retired by then. Thus, the branch clerk of court referred Spouses Go's motion to Judge Corpuz, Judge Dacumos' pairing judge. Subsequently, on December 4, 2007, Judge Aquino got appointed as presiding judge of Branch I. The motion for reconsideration got referred to Judge Aquino but he declined to resolve them on ground that it would better serve the ends of justice if Judge Corpuz, who was more conversant with the case, would resolve them instead. Thus, under Joint Decision dated April 22, 2008, Judge Corpuz resolved the ten (10) cases against Spouses Go before Branch I together with the ten (10) cases pending before him in Branch II.

The OSG argues, however, that Judge Corpuz lost authority, even as pairing judge, to resolve the ten (10) cases against Spouses Go before Branch I upon Judge Aquino's assumption of office on December 4, 2007. Specifically, Judge Corpuz' motu proprio consolidation and resolution of all twenty (20) cases against Spouses Go violated Supreme Court Circular No. 19-98, viz.:

In the interest of efficient administration of justice, the authority of the pairing judge under Circular No. 7, dated September 23, 1974, (Pairing System for Multiple Sala Stations) to act on incidental or interlocutory matters and those urgent matters requiring immediate action on cases pertaining to the paired court shall henceforth be expanded to include all other matters. Thus, whenever a vacancy occurs by reason of resignation, dismissal, suspension, retirement, death, or prolonged absence of the presiding judge in a multi-sala station, the judge of the paired court shall take cognizance of all the cases thereat as acting judge therein until the appointment and assumption to duty of the regular judge or the designation of an acting presiding judge or the return of the regular incumbent judge, or until further orders from this Court. 26 (Emphases supplied)

We disagree.

Notwithstanding Judge Aquino's appointment as Presiding Judge of Branch I, Judge Corpuz still retained residual authority to act on pending matters before said court. To be sure, Supreme Court Circular No. 19-98 is not the only issuance which lays down the extent of a pairing judge's authority. There is also Administrative Circular No. 3-94, as amended by Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 5-98, viz.: HEITAD

xxx xxx xxx

1. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, an Acting/Assisting Judge shall cease to continue hearing cases in the court where he is detailed and shall return to his official station upon the assumption of the appointed Presiding Judge or the newly designated Acting Presiding Judge thereat. Cases left by the former shall be tried and decided by the appointed Presiding Judge or the designated Acting Presiding Judge.

2. However, cases submitted for decision and those passed the trial stage, i.e., where all the parties have finished presenting their evidence before such Acting/Assisting Judge at the time of the assumption of the Presiding Judge or the designated Acting Presiding Judge shall be decided by the former. This authority shall include resolutions of motions for reconsideration and motions for new trial thereafter filed. But if a new trial is granted, the Presiding Judge thereafter appointed or designated shall preside over the new trial until it is terminated and shall decide the same.

3. If the Acting/Assisting Judge is appointed to another branch but in the same station, cases heard by him shall be transferred to the branch where he is appointed and he shall continue to try them. He shall be credited for these cases by exempting him from receiving an equal number during the raffle of newly filed cases. 27 (Emphases supplied)

xxx xxx xxx

Circular No. 5-98 complements Circular No. 19-98. As a general rule, under Circular No. 19-98, the judge of the paired court serves as acting judge only until the appointment and assumption to duty of the regular judge or the designation of an acting presiding judge. Hence, the acting judge may no longer promulgate decisions when the regular judge has already assumed the position. Circular No. 5-98, however, provides an exception — the acting judge, despite the assumption to duty of the regular judge or the designation of an acting presiding judge, shall decide cases which are already submitted for decision upon the latter's assumption or designation. 28 The authority of the pairing judge includes the authority to resolve motions for reconsideration, as here.

In Chua v. People, 29 the Court sustained Judge Santos' authority to render the assailed ruling as pairing judge for Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC)-Branch 58, San Juan City despite Judge Caldona's prior assumption of office as Acting Presiding Judge of the same branch. There, Judge Santos, as pairing judge, presided over the trial of the case which commenced on June 7, 2006. On July 25, 2007, Judge Labastida took over as he got appointed Presiding Judge of the same branch. Though the case was already set for promulgation of judgment as early as September 30, 2008, Judge Labastida died in December without resolving it. Hence, Judge Santos once again served as acting judge of Branch 58. Subsequently, on April 1, 2009, Judge Caldona became Acting Presiding Judge. Yet the Court ruled that this did not divest Judge Santos of authority to subsequently resolve the case on April 15, 2009. In accordance with Administrative Circular No. 3-94, as amended by Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 5-98, Judge Santos validly resolved the case as it was already passed trial and submitted for decision before Judge Caldona assumed office.

As for the consolidation of the twenty (20) cases for violation of BP 22 before Branch II, Section 22, Rule 119 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure reads:

SECTION 22. Consolidation of Trials of Related Offenses. — Charges for offenses founded on the same facts or forming part of a series of offenses of similar character may be tried jointly at the discretion of the court. 30 (Emphasis added)

Consolidation is a procedural device granted to the court as an aid in deciding how cases in its docket are to be tried so that the business of the court may be dispatched expeditiously while providing justice to the parties. 31 Verily, a court may order several actions pending before it to be tried together where they arise from the same act, event, or transaction, involve the same or like issues, and depend largely or substantially on the same evidence, provided that the court has jurisdiction over the cases to be consolidated and that a joint trial will not give one party an undue advantage or prejudice the substantial rights of any of the parties. 32

The object of consolidation is to avoid multiplicity of suits, guard against oppression or abuse, prevent delay, clear congested dockets, simplify the work of the trial court, save unnecessary costs and expense. In brief, consolidation seeks to attain justice with the least expense and vexation to the litigants. The present tendency is to permit consolidation whenever possible and irrespective of the diversity of the issues involved. 33 Indeed, consolidation is a matter addressed to the trial court's discretion. Sans any showing of bad faith or capriciousness on the part of the trial court, consolidation must be upheld.

Here, the Court finds the consolidation proper and in accord with the spirit underlying the rule — practicality and economy. When Judge Corpuz resolved Spouses Go's reconsideration from the verdict of conviction rendered by Branch I with those cases raffled to his sala, he did so to avoid multiplicity of suits and possible conflict in the trial courts' resolutions.

To recall, all twenty (20) counts of violation of BP 22 against Spouses Go arose from a common premise — Spouses Go issued checks in acknowledgement of their indebtedness to La Union in the amount of P4,075,000.00. To these charges, Spouses Go interposed the defense of overpayment. Faced with the same set of evidence and defense, logic dictates that Judge Corpuz should take a holistic approach towards resolving all cases against Spouses Go. For how else could Judge Corpuz appreciate Spouses Go's defense of overpayment if their indebtedness, or at least the proof thereof, would be divided into two (2) sets?

Besides, out of courtesy to Judge Aquino who was newly appointed presiding judge of Branch I, Judge Corpuz even referred back Spouses Go's reconsideration for his appreciation. As it was, Judge Aquino himself agreed that Judge Corpuz was in a better position to resolve all twenty (20) cases since the latter actually presided over the course of the trial in Branch II which essentially involved the same parties, issues, claims, defenses, and evidence.

Instead of rendering another decision or order giving credence to Spouses Go's reconsideration against the verdict of conviction, Judge Corpuz opted to resolve in one Decision all the cases against Spouses Go which arose from the same act, event, or transaction, involved the same or like issues, and depended largely or substantially on the same evidence. This not grave abuse of discretion but judicious management of his cases.

At any rate, even assuming that the consolidation was improper, the verdict of acquittal must stay in place. For Spouses Go's only participation in this muddled procedure was to timely move for reconsideration. Thereafter, it was the Honorable Judges concerned who called for the consolidation of all twenty (20) cases, not Spouses Go. Where the horse detours, the whip does not land on the carabao's back. 34

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, and the Decision dated November 5, 2009 and Resolution dated March 9, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 106284 are AFFIRMED. ATICcS

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso, concurred in by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison and now Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., rollo, pp. 40-62.

2.Rollo, p. 63.

3.Id. at 512.

Six (6) counts docketed Criminal Case Nos. 39665, 39666, 39668, 39765, 39767 and 39770 were filed against Vivien, while four (4) counts docketed Criminal Case Nos. 39670, 39673, 39674, and 39677 were filed against Spouses Go:

 

Branch I Cases

Criminal Case No. 39670	Banco Filipino Check No. 0056942
P300,000.00
Postdated May 15, 2001
Issued by: Spouses Go
Criminal Case No. 39673	Banco Filipino Check No. 0056945
P500,000.00
Postdated May 15, 2001
Issued by: Spouses Go
Criminal Case No. 39674	Banco Filipino Check No. 0056945
P500,000.00
May 15, 2001
Issued by: Spouses Go
Criminal Case No. 39677	Banco Filipino Check No. 0056950
P650,000.00
Postdated May 15, 2001
Issued by: Spouses Go
Criminal Case No. 39665	Security Bank Check No. 000 0098029
P15,500.00
Postdated June 18, 2001
Issued by: Vivien Go
Criminal Case No. 39666	Security Bank Check No. 000 0098028
P15,500.00
Postdated June 13, 2001
Issued by: Vivien Go
Criminal Case No. 39668	Security Bank Check No. 000 0098032
P19,000.00
Postdated July 27, 2001
Issued by: Vivien Go
Criminal Case No. 39765	Security Bank Check No. 000 0098017
P25,000.00
Postdated June 17, 2001
Issued by: Vivien Go
Criminal Case No. 39767	Security Bank Check No. 000 0098021
P20,750.00
Postdated July 9, 2001
Issued by: Vivien Go
Criminal Case No. 39770	Security Bank Check No. 0000098041
P10,580.00
Postdated June 26, 2001
Issued by: Vivien Go

 

4.Id. at 513.

Six (6) counts docketed Criminal Case Nos. 39667, 39669, 39748, 39766, 39768 and 39769 were filed against Vivien, while four (4) counts docketed Criminal Case Nos. 39671, 39672, 39675, and 39676 were filed against Spouses Go:

 

Branch II Cases

Criminal Case No. 39671	Banco Filipino Check No. 0056944
P700,000.00
Postdated May 15, 2001
Issued by: Spouses Go
Criminal Case No. 39672	Banco Filipino Check No. 0056943
P600,000.00
Postdated May 15, 2001
Issued by: Spouses Go
Criminal Case No. 39675	Banco Filipino Check No. 0056947
P480,000.00
Postdated May 15, 2001
Issued by: Spouses Go
Criminal Case No. 39676	Banco Filipino Check No. 0056948
P345,000.00
Postdated May 15, 2001
Issued by: Spouses Go
Criminal Case No. 39667	Security Bank Check No. 000 0098030
P16,000.00
Postdated June 25, 2001
Issued by: Vivien Go
Criminal Case No. 39669	Security Bank Check No. 000 0098031
P17,000.00
Postdated June 25, 2001
Issued by: Vivien Go
Criminal Case No. 39748	Security Bank Check No. 000 0098033
P19,375.00
Postdated July 15, 2001
Issued by: Vivien Go
Criminal Case No. 39766	Security Bank Check No. 000 0098020
P27,000.00
Postdated June 28, 2001
Issued by: Vivien Go
Criminal Case No. 39768	Security Bank Check No. 000 0098018
P26,750.00
Postdated June 25, 2001
Issued by: Vivien Go
Criminal Case No. 39769	Security Bank Check No. 000 0098042
P10,600.00
Postdated June 29, 2001
Issued by: Vivien Go

 

5.Id. at 509.

6.Id. at 510.

7.Id. at 515.

8.Id. at 68-69.

9.Id. at 21.

10.Id.

11.Id. at 90-100.

12.Id. at 99-100.

13.Id. at 52.

14.Id.

15.Id.

16.Id. at 57-58.

17.Id. at 64-74.

18. 304 Phil. 236 (1994).

19.Rollo, p. 73.

20.Id. at 75-87.

21.Id. at 49-62.

22.Id. at 58.

23.Id. at 63.

24.Id. at 9-44.

25.Id. at 564-566.

26. Expanded Authority of Pairing Courts, Supreme Court Circular No. 19-98, February 18, 1998.

27. Amendments to Paragraph A of Administrative Circular No. 3-94 dated January 26, 1994, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 5-98, February 18, 1998.

28. 821 Phil. 271, 282 (2017).

29.Id.

30. Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, October 3, 2000.

31. See Neri v. Sandiganbayan, 716 Phil. 186, 196 (2013).

32. See Caños v. E. L. Peralta, G.R. No. L-38352, August 19, 1982.

33. See Palanca v. Querubin, 141 Phil. 432, 439 (1969).

34. See Colinares v. People, 678 Phil. 482, 498 (2011).