1.

Sumbilla v Matrix Finance Corp

Facts:
Julie Sumbilla obtain a loan from Matrix corp. and as a security for payment she issued post dated checks
on which is check was amounted to 6,667.00. The PDC were dishonored on the ground that it was drawn on
closed account. Matrix demanded several times but it was ignored by the petitioner hence, they filed6 counts
of BP 22 against the petitioner in MTC. MTC found the petitioner guilty and sentence to pay for 80,000 fine
with subsidiary imprisonment.
Instead of notice appeal petitioner filed MR before MTC denied being barred by rules on summary
procedure and MTC noted that the prohibition for MR filed by petitioner will not suspend the running period
to perfect an appeal.
Notice of appeal-denied for having filed beyond reglamentary period.
Pet-elevated the case to CA under rule 65 for pet for review but the CA ruled that an ordinary appeal
is the proper remedy under rule 41 sec 2(a) of RRC. MR denied.
Pet- filed pet for review on certiorari under rule 65.
Issue: WON the penalty imposed by the MTC is proper, final and executory and hence it cannot be modified.
Ruling: NO.
Section 1 BP 22:

SECTION 1. Checks without sufficient funds. - Any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply on
account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank
for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason,
ordered the bank to stop payment, shall be punished by 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.
Here, the face value of each of the six checks that bounced is P6,667.00. Under Section 1 of BP 22, the

maximum penalty of fine that can be imposed on petitioner is only 1!13,334.00, or the amount double the face value of
each check. Indubitably, the MeTC meted the petitioner a penalty of fine way beyond the maximum limits prescribed
under Section 1 of BP 22. The fine of P80,000.00 is more than 11 times the amount of the face value of each check that
was dishonored.
Instead of using as basis the face value of each check (P6,667.00), the MeTC incorrectly computed the amount of
fine using the total face value of the six checks (P40,002.00).
Unfortunately, in the present case, the MeTC Decision is already final and executory after petitioner failed to
timely file a Notice of Appeal. Under the doctrine of finality and immutability of judgments, a decision that has acquired
finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is
meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law, and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the
highest court of the land. Upon finality of the judgment, the Court loses its jurisdiction to amend, modify or alter the
same.
The Court has the power and prerogative to suspend its own rules and to exempt a case from their operation if
and when justice requires it. However, this Court has relaxed this rule in order to serve substantial justice considering
(a) matters of life, liberty, honor or property, (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances, (c) the merits of the
case, (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules, (e)
a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, and (f) the other party will not be unjustly
prejudiced thereby.
In this case, it cannot be gainsaid that what is involved is the life and liberty of petitioner. If his penalty of
imprisonment remains uncorrected, it would be not conformable with law and he would be made to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of 18 years, 2 months and 21 days of reclusion temporal as minimum, to 40 years of reclusion perpetua,
as maximum, which is outside the range of the penalty prescribed by law. Contrast this to the proper imposable penalty
the minimum of which should only be within the range of 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 6 years of prision correccional,
while the maximum should only be anywhere between 11 years, 8 months and 1 day of prision mayor to 13 years of
reclusion temporal. Substantial justice demands that we suspend our Rules in this case. "It is always within the power of
the court to suspend its own [R]ules or except a particular case from its operation, whenever the purposes of justice
require.
Suspending the Rules is justified "where there exist strong compelling reasons, such as serving the ends of
justice and preventing a miscarriage thereof." After all, the Court's "primordial and most important duty is to render
justice.
Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 establishes a rule of preference in the application of the penal provisions of
B.P. Big. 22 such that where the circumstances of both the offense and the offender clearly indicate good faith or a clear
mistake of fact without taint of negligence, the imposition of a fine alone should be considered as the more appropriate
penalty. Needless to say, the determination of whether the circumstances warrant the imposition of a fine alone rests
solely upon the Judge. Should the Judge decide that imprisonment is the more appropriate penalty, Administrative
Circular No. 12-2000 ought not be deemed a hindrance.
. Administrative Circular 12-2000 does not remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty for violations of B.P
Big. 22;
Should only a fine be imposed and tile accused be unable to pay the fine, there is no legal obstacle to the
application of the Revised Penal Code provisions on subsidiary imprisonment.
22

1awp++i1

2. People v Evangelista
Facts:

Pri. Resp Grildo Tugonan was charged with frustrated Homicide in RTC, Misamis
Oriental. Trial ensued and found guilty by the said court and sentenced to one year of prision
correccional in its minimum period and ordered to pay to the offended party P5,000.00 for medical
expense, without subsidiary imprisonment, and the costs. The RTC appreciated in his favor the
privileged mitigating circumstances of incomplete self-defense and the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender.
On appeal, CA modified his sentence indeterminate penalty of 2 months of arresto mayor, as
minimum, to 2 years and 4 months of prision correccional, as maximum.
RTC respondent judge Antonio C Evangelista order the repromulgation. Private resp
filed a petition for Probation under PD 968. RTC order the appearance of PR for`interview to
provincial probation officer on his probation application. Probation officer recommended that
PR should be denied because they appeal the sentence of the trial court to CA which is already
probationable. RTC disregard the recommendation and granted the application for probation of
PR.
Hence, this petition by the prosecution.
Issue: WON the RTC grave abuse of discretion by granting the PR application for probation
despite the fact that he had appealed of his conviction of the trial court.
Ruling:
PD 986 was amended by PD No. 1990 which took effect on January 15, 1986
precisely put a stop to the practice of appealing from judgments of conviction even if the sentence is
probationable for the purpose of securing an acquittal and applying for probation only if the accused
fails in his bid. Thus, as amended by P.D. No. 1990, section 4 of the Probation Law now reads:
4. Grant of Probation. Subject to the provisions of this Decree, the trial court may, after it shall have convicted
and sentenced a defendant, and upon application by said defendant within the period for perfecting an
appeal, suspend the execution of the sentence and place the defendant on probation for such period and upon
such terms and conditions as it may deem best; Provided, That no application for probation shall be entertained
or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction.
Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine only. An application
for probation shall be filed with the trial court. The filing of the application shall be deemed a waiver of the right
to appeal.

Since private respondent filed his application for probation on December 28, 1992, after P.D. No. 1990
had taken effect, it is covered by the prohibition that no application for probation shall be entertained or
granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction and that the filing of
the application shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal. Having appealed from the judgment of
the trial court and having applied for probation only after the Court of Appeals had affirmed his
conviction, private respondent was clearly precluded from the benefits of probation.