FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 259571. July 27, 2022.]
RICHARD TOLORES, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated July 27, 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 259571 (Richard Tolores v. People of the Philippines). — This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 (Petition) assails the Decision 2 dated 30 June 2020 and Resolution 3 dated 01 December 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 40564. The CA affirmed the Decision dated 15 August 2017 of Branch 138, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City in Criminal Case Nos. R-MKT-16-01599-CR to R-MKT-16-01614-CR, which affirmed the Decision dated 29 June 2016 of Branch 65, Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati City, convicting herein petitioner Richard Tolores (Tolores) for 16 counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 22. 4
After evaluating the records of the case, this Court resolves to DENY the instant Petition and AFFIRM the conviction of Tolores, there being no reversible error on the part of the CA.
Likewise, there is no merit in Tolores' argument that assuming he has culpability for the charges, the penalty should only be a fine. Notably, BP 22 clearly provides that the penalty shall be imprisonment or fine, or both, imposable at the discretion of the court. 5 Contrary to the assertions of Tolores, it was clarified in Administrative Circular No. 13-2001 6 that Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 7 did not remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty for violations of BP 22. The determination of the circumstances which warrant the imposition of the proper penalty rests on the judge, and if the latter decides that imprisonment is the more appropriate penalty, Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 should not be deemed as a hindrance. Accordingly, We deem it proper to give due respect to the ruling of the MeTC in imposing the penalty of imprisonment, as affirmed by the RTC and the CA. Clearly, the MeTC's exercise of discretion to impose the penalty of imprisonment was within the bounds of BP 22.
However, it must be emphasized that Section 1 of BP 22 states that the penalty of imprisonment, if imposed, shall not be less than 30 days but not more than one year. Hence, in order to be consistent with the law, the period of imprisonment imposed on Tolores should be MODIFIED to 30 days for each count of violation of BP 22.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the assailed Decision dated 30 June 2020 and Resolution dated 01 December 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 40564 finding petitioner Richard Tolores GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for 16 counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner is sentenced to suffer the penalty of 30 days of imprisonment for each count of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 and is ordered to pay attorney's fees in the amount of P20,000.00.
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.Rollo, pp. 9-25.
2.Id. at 28-44. Penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh (Now a Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and Bonifacio S. Pascua.
3.Id. at 51-53.
4. Entitled "AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR DRAWING AND ISSUANCE OF A CHECK WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR CREDIT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Approved: 03 April 1979.
5.Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (1979), Section 1.
6. Clarification of Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 on the Penalty for Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, Otherwise Known as the Bouncing Checks Law, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 13-01, 14 February 2001.
7. Penalty for Violation of B.P. Blg. 22, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12-00, 21 November 2000.