Go vs Dimagiba, 460 SCRA 451

NATURE: RETROACTIVE APPLICATION IF FAVORABLE TO THE ACCUSED)

Facts

Fernando Dimagiba was found guilty in violating Batas Pambansa 22, having
issued Susan Go 13 checks but were all dishonoured by the drawee bank due to
account closed. He was sentenced for 3 months imprisonment for each count, to
pay the amount (1,295,000 pesos) plus interests.

Dimagiba filed for Motion for reconsideration and motion for the modification
of the final decision. But he was still arrested and imprisoned for the service of his
sentence. Dimagiba then, hoping the final decision to be modified, filed in RTC a
petition for writ of habeas corpus which was granted by the said court after
hearing the said case.

Contention of State: His petition for writ of habeas corpus in RTC was an
attempt to reopen a case that has been long final and executory, an action
deplorably amounting to forum shopping. (it is the informal name given to the practice
adopted by some litigants to have their legal case heard in the court thought most likely to provide a
favourable judgment)

Regional Trial Court Ruling - (SC-AC) No. 12-200 - requires the imposition of a
fine only instead of imprisonment also for BP 22 violations, if the accused was not
a habitual delinquent. The RTC held that this rule should be retroactively applied in
favor of Dimagiba. It further noted that (1) he was a first-time offender and an
employer of at least 200 workers who would be displaced as a result of his
imprisonment; and (2) the civil liability had already been satisfied through the levy
of his properties.

Contention of the Accused - punishment was excessive; he should not be

imprisoned but instead should be penalized of paying a fine only.

Ruling

The rule of retroactivity states that criminal laws may be applied

retroactively if favourable to the accused. SC-AC No. 12-2000 cannot be given
retroactive application if it is not a law that deletes the penalty of imprisonment. It
is a merely rule of preference as to which penalty to be imposed under peculiar
circumstances of the case.

At any rate, civil liability differs from criminal liability. What is punished in
the latter is not the failure to pay the obligation, but the issuance of checks that
subsequently bounced or were dishonored for insufficiency or lack of funds. The
Court reiterates the reasons why the issuance of worthless checks is criminalized:
"The practice is prohibited by law because of its deleterious effects on public interest.
The effects of the increase of worthless checks transcend the private interest of the
parties directly involved in the transaction and touch the interest of the community at
large. The mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury
to the public. The harmful practice of putting valueless commercial papers in circulation
multiplied a thousand-fold can very well pollute the channels of trade and commerce,
injure the banking system and eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public
interest. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property but an offense
against public order."