Pineda-Clarino v. People

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 259491. July 25, 2022.]

LEONOR R. PINEDA-CLARINO, complainant,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 25, 2022, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 259491 (Leonor R. Pineda-Clarino vs. People of the Philippines). — The Court resolves to DENY the petition for review on certiorari for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed judgment as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction in this case pursuant to Section 6, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, and for lack of merit in the appeal pursuant to Section 5, Rule 45 in relation to Section 5 (b), Rule 56 of the Rules of Court.

However, in accordance with the Court's ruling in the case of Lim vs. People, 1 the fine of P755,000.00 imposed by the lower courts and appellate court should be modified because it appears to exceed the P200,000.00 limit under Section 1 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) which provides for the penalty of "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." Instead of imposing a lump sum fine, the proper penalty should be a fine of P105,000.00 (face value of each check) for each of the seven (7) counts of violation of BP 22 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. 2

The actual damages in the amount of P735,000.00 representing the face value of the seven (7) checks, which the lower courts and the appellate court awarded to the private complainant shall further incur interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the filing of the Information on January 28, 2008 until June 30, 2013, and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until finality of this Resolution. Moreover, the total amount owing to the private complainant should further earn legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from its finality until full payment, in line with Nacar v. Gallery Frames, Inc.3

Finally, the Court held in the case of Delos Santos v. Papa4 that an award of attorney's fees under Article 2208 demands factual, legal, and equitable justification to avoid speculation and conjecture surrounding the grant thereof. Here, there is no factual, legal, or equitable justification for the award of attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court simply affirmed the Municipal Trial Court's Decision which granted the award. There was no explanation on the basis of the grant. Hence, the award of attorney's fees should be deleted.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated January 8, 2021 and Resolution dated February 28, 2022 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 41883 arc hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS:

1) A line of P105,000.00 (face value of each check) for each of the seven (7) counts of violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 should be imposed, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency;

2) The line in the total amount of P735,000.00 representing the face value of the seven (7) checks shall incur interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the filing of the Information on January 28, 2008 until June 30, 2013, and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until finality of this Resolution. Additionally, the total amount owing to the private complainant should further earn legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this Resolution until full payment; and

3) The award of attorney's fees is deleted.

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. G.R. No. 224979, December 13, 2017.

2. See Legarda v. People, G.R. No. 249688, June 15, 2020; Atacador v. People, G.R. No. 240182, September 30, 2020; Choa v. People, G.R. No. 256162, July 5, 2021; and Alvaro v. People, G.R. No. 257059, January 3, 2022.

3. 716 Phil. 267, 282-283 (2013).

4. 605 Phil. 460-474 (2009).