Hernandez v.

CA
GR No. 104874, DECEMBER 14, 1993
Quiason, J. / kmd

SUBJECT MATTER: Judicial Department; Supreme Court; Requirements as to decisions

CASE SUMMARY:
In this case, petitioner purchased several pieces of expensive jewelries from de Leon and paid post-dated
checks. These checks were either drawn against insufficient funds or closed accounts. RTC convicted the
petitioner of estafa and violation of BP blg. 22 (5 cases of estafa & 4 cases of BP 22 violation). CA
affirmed RTC decision in 8 cases but acquitted the petitioner in one estafa case. Petitioner filed this
petition alleging that CA violated sec. 14, Art. VIII of the Constitution. SC dismissed petition and
affirmed CA decision.
DOCTRINES:
There is no prescription against the court’s adoption of the narration of facts made in the brief or
memoranda of the parties.
Briefs or memoranda are required in order to aid the courts in the writing of decisions.
FACTS:
 In August 1986, petitioner was introduced to Remedios de Leon whose business was jewelry buy &
sell.
 In their first transaction, petitioner paind in cash the several pieces of jewelry that he bought from de
Leon.
 In subsequent transactions, petitioner either paid in cash or by way of post-dated checks. When the
issued checks bounced, the petitioner would pay de Leon cash in exchange of dishonored checks.
Date Jewelry Mode of Payment
October 20, 1986 1 pair 2-carat diamond earrings Issued BPI check #1
10AM worth PhP 150,000 Postdated to Oct. 26, 1986
October 20, 1986 1 choker with 20 diamond stones & BPI check #2
7PM 1 bracelet with 16 diamond stones Postdated to Oct. 27, 1986
worth Php 250,000
October 22, 1986 1 heart-shaped diamond set BPI check #3
worth PhP 280,000 Postdated to Nov. 9, 1986
October 23, 1986 1 set of earrings & 1 ring BPI check #4
woth PhP 100,000 Postdated Oct. 23, 1986
October 24, 1986 5-carat diamond piece BPI check #5
worth PhP 150,000 Postdated to Nov. 10, 1986

 BPI check #’s 1, 2, and 4 were drawn against insufficient funds.

 BPI check #’s 3 and 5 were drawn against a closed account.
 Petitioner was charged in nine informations with estafa and violation of BP Blg. 22.
 On appeal to the CA, the conviction of petitioner was affirmed as to 8 criminal cases and was
acquitted in one criminal case of estafa.
 In this petition, petitioner claims that his conviction on 9 distinct offenses subject of 9 separate
information in a single judgment is reversible error.
ISSUE/S:
 1. WON CA violated constitutional mandate that decisions shall contain the facts of the law on
which they are based when it merely adopted the statement of facts of the Solicitor General in the
appellee’s brief. (NO)
2. WON CA violated the constitutional mandate requiring that any denial of a motion for
reconsideration must state the legal basis thereof when it denied the MR on the basis of a
comparison of said motion with the “comment thereon”. (NO)
HOLDING:
1. No, the CA did not violate the constitutional mandate that decisions shall contain the facts and the
law on which they are based.
Constitutional mandate only requires that the decision should state the facts on which it is based.
There is no prescription against the court’s adoption of the narration of facts made in the briefs of
memoranda of the parties, instead of rewriting the same in its own words. Precisely briefs or
memoranda are required in order to aid the courts in writing the decisions.
2. No, the CA did not violate the constitutional mandate requiring that any denial of MR must state
the legal basis therof.
The denial was based on the ground that the CA did not find any “cogent reason that could justify
a modification or reversal of the decision sought to be reconsidered.

Petition is DENIED. CA decision is AFFIRMED.