Sycip vs Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 12059
March 17, 2000
Criminal Law
Criminal Case Digest
Facts:
On August 24, 1989, Francisco T. Sycip, Jr., agreed to buy, on installment, from Francel Realty Corporation (FRC), a townhouse unit in the latter’s project at Bacoor, Cavite. Upon execution of the contract to sell, as required, issued to FRC, forty-eight (48) postdated checks, each in the amount of P9,304.00, covering 48 monthly installments.
After moving in his unit, Sycip complained, to FRC regarding defects in the unit and incomplete features of the townhouse project. FRC ignored the complaint. Dissatisfied, Sycip served on FRC two (2) notorial notices to the effect that he was suspending his installment payments on the unit pending compliance with the project plans and specifications, as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). Sycip and twelve (12) out of fourteen (14) unit buyers then filed a complaint with the HLURB. The complaint was dismissed as to the defect, but FRC was ordered by the HLURB to finish all incomplete features of its townhouse project. Sycip appealed the dismissal of the complaint as to the alleged defects.
Notwithstanding the notorial notices, FRC continued to present for encashment Sycip’s postdated checks in its possession. Sycip sent “stop payment orders” to the bank. When FRC continued to present the other postdated checks to the bank as the due date fell, the bank advised Sycip to close his checking account to avoid paying bank charges every time he made a “stop payment” order on the forthcoming checks. Due to the closure of petitioner’s checking account, the drawee bank dishonored six postdated checks. FRC file a complaint against petitioner for violations of B.P. Blg. 22 involving said dishonored checks.
Issues:
(a) Whether or not the accused is criminally liable of the B.P. Blg. 22?
(b) Whether or not the trial court erred in affirming the conviction of petitioner for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law?
Held:
The trial court finds accused Francisco T. Sycip guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Sec. 1 of the Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and, accordingly, he is hereby sentenced ordered to pay the offended party, FRC, as and for actual damages with interest thereon at the legal rate from date of commencement of these actions, until full payment thereof.
Dissastied, Sycip appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. The Appellate Court erred in affirming the decision of the lower court finding that the accused-appellant did not have any justifiable cause to stop or otherwise prevent the payment of the subject checks by the drawee bank. The CA also erred that the accused-appellant did not have sufficient funds with the drawee to cover the subject checks upon resentment for payment thereof.
However, while B.P. Blg. 22 was enacted to safeguard the interest of the banking system. It is difficult to see how conviction of the accused in this case will protect the sanctity of the financial system.
Given the findings of the HLURB as to incomplete features in the construction of petitioner’s and other units of the subject condominium bought on installment from FRC, the Court of Appeals held that the petitioner had a valid cause to order his bank to stop payment. Hence, it said that offenses punished by a special law, like the Bouncing Checks Law, are not subject to the Revised Penal Code, the Code is supplementary to such law. The petitioner, Francisco T. Sycip, Jr., is acquitted of the charges against him under B.P. Blg. 22, for lack of sufficient evidence to prove the offenses charged beyond reasonable doubt. No pronouncement as to costs.
G.R. No. 12059
March 17, 2000
Criminal Law
Criminal Case Digest
Facts:
On August 24, 1989, Francisco T. Sycip, Jr., agreed to buy, on installment, from Francel Realty Corporation (FRC), a townhouse unit in the latter’s project at Bacoor, Cavite. Upon execution of the contract to sell, as required, issued to FRC, forty-eight (48) postdated checks, each in the amount of P9,304.00, covering 48 monthly installments.
After moving in his unit, Sycip complained, to FRC regarding defects in the unit and incomplete features of the townhouse project. FRC ignored the complaint. Dissatisfied, Sycip served on FRC two (2) notorial notices to the effect that he was suspending his installment payments on the unit pending compliance with the project plans and specifications, as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). Sycip and twelve (12) out of fourteen (14) unit buyers then filed a complaint with the HLURB. The complaint was dismissed as to the defect, but FRC was ordered by the HLURB to finish all incomplete features of its townhouse project. Sycip appealed the dismissal of the complaint as to the alleged defects.
Notwithstanding the notorial notices, FRC continued to present for encashment Sycip’s postdated checks in its possession. Sycip sent “stop payment orders” to the bank. When FRC continued to present the other postdated checks to the bank as the due date fell, the bank advised Sycip to close his checking account to avoid paying bank charges every time he made a “stop payment” order on the forthcoming checks. Due to the closure of petitioner’s checking account, the drawee bank dishonored six postdated checks. FRC file a complaint against petitioner for violations of B.P. Blg. 22 involving said dishonored checks.
Issues:
(a) Whether or not the accused is criminally liable of the B.P. Blg. 22?
(b) Whether or not the trial court erred in affirming the conviction of petitioner for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law?
Held:
The trial court finds accused Francisco T. Sycip guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Sec. 1 of the Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and, accordingly, he is hereby sentenced ordered to pay the offended party, FRC, as and for actual damages with interest thereon at the legal rate from date of commencement of these actions, until full payment thereof.
Dissastied, Sycip appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. The Appellate Court erred in affirming the decision of the lower court finding that the accused-appellant did not have any justifiable cause to stop or otherwise prevent the payment of the subject checks by the drawee bank. The CA also erred that the accused-appellant did not have sufficient funds with the drawee to cover the subject checks upon resentment for payment thereof.
However, while B.P. Blg. 22 was enacted to safeguard the interest of the banking system. It is difficult to see how conviction of the accused in this case will protect the sanctity of the financial system.
Given the findings of the HLURB as to incomplete features in the construction of petitioner’s and other units of the subject condominium bought on installment from FRC, the Court of Appeals held that the petitioner had a valid cause to order his bank to stop payment. Hence, it said that offenses punished by a special law, like the Bouncing Checks Law, are not subject to the Revised Penal Code, the Code is supplementary to such law. The petitioner, Francisco T. Sycip, Jr., is acquitted of the charges against him under B.P. Blg. 22, for lack of sufficient evidence to prove the offenses charged beyond reasonable doubt. No pronouncement as to costs.
