Valdrez v. People

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 207265. April 23, 2014.]

WILLIAM T. VALDREZ, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 23 April 2014which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 207265 [William T. Valdrez vs. People of the Philippines]

Before the Court is a Motion for Clarification of our Resolution dated January 29, 2014, which noted the Manifestation in Lieu of Comment of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) informing the Court that the parties submitted a Compromise Agreement with Joint Motion to Dismiss the Batas Pambansa Blg. (B.P.) 22 (The Anti-Bouncing Check Law) case against petitioner William T. Valdrez before the Court of Appeals (CA), and that, for this reason, it agrees to the dismissal prayed for by petitioner. Acting on such manifestation, the Court declared the case closed and terminated.

In the present motion, petitioner seeks to clarify whether the Court granted the prayer for the approval of the compromise agreement and/or the prayer for the dismissal of the B.P. 22 case. 1CAHaST

As a backgrounder, this case was initiated by private complainant Odel Rabana who caused the filing of an Information for violation of B.P. 22 against petitioner on the basis of a dishonored check in the amount of P277,048.00. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 9, Laoag City convicted petitioner, 2 and this conviction was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), 3 Laoag City, Ilocos Norte and the CA. 4 In the interim, however, that the CA was resolving petitioner's motion for reconsideration, the parties, duly assisted by their respective counsels, submitted a Compromise Agreement with Joint Motion to Dismiss the B.P. 22 case against petitioner (Compromise Agreement). The said Compromise Agreement, however, was noted without action by the CA, and it proceeded to deny petitioner's motion for reconsideration. 5

Petitioner filed the present petition for review on certiorari before the Court and after initial assessment, we required the OSG to comment on the petition. As adverted to earlier, the OSG, in lieu of filing a comment, manifested that it agrees with the dismissal of the case in view of the Compromise Agreement.

As a preliminary, we note that although petitioner has been convicted by the lower courts, such conviction is not yet final and executory, and thus, may still be modified or set aside pursuant to Sec. 7, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit: HECaTD

SEC. 7. Modification of Judgment. — A judgment of conviction may, upon motion of the accused, be modified or set aside before it becomes final or before appeal is perfected. Except where the death penalty is imposed, a judgment becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal, or when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or when the accused has waived in writing his right to appeal, or has applied for probation.

Such provision finds application in the case at bar where, as admitted by the private complainant, duly assisted by counsel, there was a precipitate filing of the B.P. 22 case as, after proper accounting, it was discovered that the subject check has been previously discharged through the full payment made by petitioner consonant to the previous arrangements of the parties prior to the institution of the B.P. 22 case. The following excerpts from the Compromise Agreement are illuminating:

The PARTIES declare that their differences arose from their misunderstanding as to their previous arrangements coupled by the lack of proper accounting as to their respective obligations to each other and that of their respective spouses. At the outset, it has been the parties' arrangement that the payment of the Chinabank Check No. LWG A 0000720949 dated June 10, 2007 in the amount of P277,048.00 which is the subject matter of Criminal Case No. 34820 before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch I, Laoag City, and which is now the subject of petition for review, should come from the proceeds of the collateral motor vehicle. However, due to some personal miscommunications and disagreements, there was an apparent precipitate filing of Violation of BP 22 against the accused herein; (Emphasis supplied.) 6

xxx xxx xxx

A. The PARTIES hereby declare that Chinabank Check No. LWG A 0000720949 dated June 10, 2007 in the amount of P277,048.00 which is the subject of the BP 22 case against the accused and is the subject of appeal/petition for review, has been previously discharged through the full payment made by the accused consonant to the previous arrangements of herein parties prior to the institution of the case of BP 22 before the MTCC-I, Laoag City, and that which remained unpaid are other transactions which were not covered by the aforesaid check; 7 (Emphasis supplied).

To be liable for a violation of B.P. 22, the following elements must be proven: 8

(1) The making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; HEDSCc

(2) The knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue there were no sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment; and

(3) The dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency or funds or credit or the dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the drawee bank to stop payment.

In the case at bar, it can be argued that there was no dishonor as, in fact, there was payment of the amount or a discharge prior to filing the B.P. 22 case.

We are not unaware of our pronouncement that in B.P. 22 cases, what the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check, and not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance, and that moreover, the gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment, and not the non-payment of an obligation. 9 However, in the present case, we cannot help but consider the fact that there was already a pre-arranged form of payment which discharged the check. Normally, this would not be a tenable defense, but as applied to the instant case, and to this case only, it would be unfair to hold petitioner liable when the B.P. 22 case, as admitted by private complainant, was brought about merely by a misunderstanding between the parties coupled with the lack of proper accounting.

As a last note, the Court admonishes private complainant Odel Rabana for the precipitate filing of the subject B.P. 22 case. It is to be noted that this case has expended the time and resources of the MTCC, RTC, CA and the Court when a proper accounting could have prevented this drawn out lawsuit.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby Resolves to:

1) APPROVE the Compromise Agreement with Joint Motion to Dismiss the B.P. 22 case against petitioner William T. Valdrez;

2) APPROVE the dismissal of the subject B.P. 22 case against petitioner William T. Valdrez; and

3) DECLARE this case closed and terminated.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, p. 108.

2. Id. at 60.

3. Id. at 70.

4. Id. at 48.

5. Id. at 52.

6. Id. at 72.

7. Id. at 73.

8. Resterio v. People, G.R. No. 177438, September 24, 2012.

9. Ong v. People, G.R. No. 139006, November 27, 2000.