Chua vs.

People (2017)

JOHN DENNIS G. CHUA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES & CRISTINA YAO
G.R. No. 195248, November 22, 2017

Facts: Sometime in the year 2000, petitioner's mother mentioned that her son
would be reviving their sugar mill business and asked whether Yao could lend
them money. Yao acceded and loaned petitioner ₱1 million on 3 January
2001; ₱1 million on 7 January 2001; and ₱l.5 million on 16 February 2001.
She also lent petitioner an additional ₱2.5 million in June 2001. As payment
petitioner issued four (4) checks in these amounts but which were dishonored
for having been drawn against a closed account. Upon dishonor of the
checks, Yao personally delivered her demand letter to the office of the
petitioner which was received by his secretary. Petitioner was thus charged
with four (4) counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22.

Petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to prove actual receipt of the notice.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner is guilty of B.P.22.

Ruling: No. To be liable for violation of B.P. Big. 22, the following essential elements
must be present: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for
account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the
time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for
the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent
dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or
dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered
the bank to stop payment.

The Court finds that the second element was not sufficiently established. Yao
testified that the personal secretary of petitioner received the demand letter,
yet, said personal secretary was never presented to testify whether she in fact
handed the demand letter to petitioner who, from the onset, denies having
received such letter. It must be borne in mind that it is not enough for the
prosecution to prove that a notice of dishonor was sent to the accused. The
prosecution must also prove actual receipt of said notice, because the fact of
service provided for in the law is reckoned from receipt of such notice of
dishonor by the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The presumption that the issuer had knowledge of the
insufficiency of funds is brought into existence only after it is proved that the issuer
had received a notice of dishonor and that within five days from receipt thereof, he
failed to pay the amount of the check or to make arrangement for its payment.

Gist: This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Orders of the RTC,
which affirmed the Decision, finding petitioner guilty of four (4) counts of
violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. Big. 22).
People vs. Sandiganbayan, Gamos (2018)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ALEJANDRO E. GAMOS

et al
G.R. Nos. 232197-98, April 16, 2018

Facts: On February 18, 2008, a complaint was filed against former Sta. Magdalena,
Sorsogon Mayor Alejandro E. Gamos (Gamos), Municipal Accountant Rosalyn E.
Gile (Gile), and Municipal Treasurer Virginia E. Laco (Laco) for violation of Section
3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. On March 30, 2015, two Informations for malversation
of public funds were filed against Gamos, Gile, and Laco before the Sandiganbayan.

On February 1, 2017, the Sandiganbayan issued its assailed Resolution, dismissing

the cases, on the ground of delay, depriving the respondents-accused Gamos, Gile
and Laco of their right to a speedy disposition of their cases. Sandiganbayan found
that seven years had passed since the filing of the First Complaint in 2008 until the
filing of the Informations before it.

Issue: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion

when it dismissed the cases before it on the ground of delay.

Ruling: Yes. The conduct of both the prosecution and defendant are weighed
apropos the four-fold factors, to wit: (1) length of the delay; (2) reason for the delay;
(3) defendant's assertion or non-assertion of his right; and (4) prejudice to defendant
resulting from the delay.

It is not unreasonable for the investigating officer to embark into the detailed
investigation of the cases. As alleged, there were 63 cash advance transactions in
the two complaints to investigated upon, covering the period of 2004 to 2007.

There is nothing on record that would show that respondents asserted this right to
speedy disposition during the OMB proceedings when they alleged that the delay
occurred. In fact, it took respondents one year and eight months after the
Informations were filed before the court a quo on March 30, 2015 before they finally
asserted such right in their Motion to Dismiss. Neither was there a considerable
prejudice caused by a delay upon the respondents. Respondents were practically
not made to undergo any investigative proceeding prior to the COA's response to
respondents' request for the review of the audit reports upon which the complaints
were anchored.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is not

sufficient.

Gist: This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing
the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan.
People vs. Alapan (2018)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES THRU PRIVATE COMPLAINANT BRIAN VICTOR

BRITCHFORD vs. SALVADOR ALAPAN
G.R. No. 199527, January 10, 2018

Facts: Accused-appellant Salvador Alapan and his wife Myrna Alapan were charged
with 8 counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 after they borrowed ₱400,000.00 and issued
8 postdated checks in favor of petitioner Brian Victor Britchford. The checks were
dishonored when they were deposited. Upon arraignment, they pleaded not guilty to
the charges.

The Municipal Trial Court convicted Alapan of 8 counts of violation of B.P. Big. 22
with a penalty of fine instead of imprisonment. After a writ of execution was issued,
the writ was returned unsatisfied. Petitioner thus filed a Motion to Impose Subsidiary
Penalty for respondent's failure to pay the fine imposed by the MTC.

Both the MTC and RTC denied the motion. Likewise, the CA dismissed the petition
for it was filed without the intervention of the Office of the Solicitor General.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner has legal standing to question the trial court's
order.

Ruling: Petitioner lacks legal standing to question the trial court's order.

Jurisprudence has already settled that the interest of the private complainant is
limited only to the civil liability arising from the crime.

In this case, respondent was convicted of eight (8) counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22
for which he was imposed the penalty of fine instead of imprisonment pursuant to
Administrative Circulars No. 12-2000 and 13-2001. Thus, the penalty of fine and the
imposition of subsidiary imprisonment in case of nonpayment thereof pertain to the
criminal aspect of the case. On the other hand, the indemnification for the face value
of the dishonored checks refers to the civil aspect of the case. Consequently,
petitioner could not appeal the imposition of fine as penalty which was not even
questioned by the People through the OSG. To do so would be tantamount to giving
the private prosecutor the direction and control of the criminal proceeding, contrary
to the provisions of law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a criminal case in which the offended party is the State, the
interest of the private complainant or the private offended party is limited to the civil
liability arising therefrom.

Gist: This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Resolution of the CA,
which dismissed the petition seeking the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment for
nonpayment of fine in eight (8) cases of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P.
Blg. 22).
G.R. No. 89070 BENGUET ELECTRlC COOPERATIVE, INC., petitioner, vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PETER COSALAN and BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., respondents. May
18, 1992

FACTS:
COA issued a memorandum to Peter Cosalan, General Manager of Beneco noting that cash
advances received by officers and employees of petitioner Beneco in the amount of P129, 618. 48
had been virtually written off in the books of Beneco. Soon, COA issued another Memorandum,
also addressed to Cosalan inviting attention to the fact that the audit of per diems and
allowances received by officials and members of the Board of Directors of Beneco showed
substantial inconsistencies with the directives of the NEA. The Audit Memorandum once again
directed the taking of immediate action in conformity with existing NEA regulations. Later on,
Petitioner Beneco received the COA Audit Report on the financial status and operations of Beneco
which noted and enumerated irregularities in the utilization of funds amounting to P37 Million
released by NEA to Beneco, and recommended that appropriate remedial action be
taken. Having been made aware of the serious financial condition of Beneco and
what appeared to be mismanagement, respondent Cosalan initiated implementation of the
remedial measures recommended by the COA. The respondent members of the Board of
Beneco reacted by adopting a series of resolutions including one which resulted in the
ouster of respondent Cosalan as General Manager of Beneco and his exclusion from
performance of his regular duties as such, as well as the withholding of his salary
and allowances. Aggrieved, Cosalan filed a complaint before the NLRC challenging the
legality of the board resolutions. NRLC rendered a decision reinstating Cosalan as well as the
payment of his backwages an allowances. Respondent Board members appealed to
the NLRC, and there filed a Memorandum on Appeal. Petitioner Beneco did not appeal, but
moved to dismiss the appeal filed by respondent Board members and for execution of judgment.
By this time, petitioner Beneco had a new set of directors. They moved for reconsideration of the
NLRC decision, but without success. Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:
Whether or not the NLRC had acted with grave abuse of discretion in accepting and giving
due course to respondent Board members' appeal although such appeal had been filed
out of time; and that the NLRC had acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
of jurisdiction in holding petitioner alone liable for payment of the backwages and
allowances due to Cosalan and releasing respondent Board members from liability
therefor.

RULING:
Yes. There, was, therefore, no reason grounded upon substantial justice and the prevention of
serious miscarriage of justice that might have justified the NLRC in disregarding the
ten-day reglementary period for perfection of an appeal by the respondent Board members.
Accordingly, the applicable rule was that the ten-day reglementary period to perfect an appeal is
mandatory and jurisdictional in nature, that failure to file an appeal within the
reglementary period renders the assailed decision final and executory and no longer subject
to review. The respondent Board members had thus lost their right to appeal from the decision of
the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC should have forthwith dismissed their appeal
memorandum.
The Court believe and so hold, further, that not only are Beneco and respondent Board members
properly held solidarily liable for the awards made by the Labor Arbiter, but also that petitioner
Beneco which was controlled by and which could act only through respondent Board members,
has a right to be reimbursed for any amounts that Beneco may be compelled to pay
to respondent Cosalan. Such right of reimbursement is essential if the innocent members of
Beneco are not to be penalized for the acts of respondent Board members which were both done
in bad faith and
ultra vires
. The liability-generating acts here are the personal and individual acts of respondent
Board members, and are not properly attributed to Beneco itself.