Nierras v. Dacuycuy
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Peter Nierras issued nine (9) checks to Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation in payment for oil products delivered simultaneously. These checks were dishonored by the drawee bank due to a closed account. Despite demands, Nierras failed to deposit funds or pay for the products. Procedural History: Nine (9) criminal cases for estafa under Article 315 (2-d) of the Revised Penal Code were filed against Nierras. Simultaneously, other cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) were pending, involving the same checks. Nierras filed a motion to quash the estafa cases, arguing double jeopardy. The respondent judge denied the motion. The Petition: Nierras filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction, seeking to annul the resolution denying his motion to quash, on the ground that prosecuting him for both estafa and violation of B.P. Blg. 22 for the same acts would constitute double jeopardy.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution of petitioner for estafa under Article 315 (2-d) of the Revised Penal Code and for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 for issuing the same bouncing checks constitutes double jeopardy. Whether certiorari is the proper remedy for the denial of a motion to quash.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. Certiorari is not the proper remedy for the denial of a motion to quash; the accused should proceed to trial and appeal any adverse decision thereafter. The prosecution for both offenses does not constitute double jeopardy.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of double jeopardy: The Court held that the prosecution of petitioner for estafa under Article 315 (2-d) of the Revised Penal Code and for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 for issuing the same bouncing checks does not constitute double jeopardy. The Court explained that these are two distinct offenses, each with its own set of elements and penalties. While both involve the issuance of a dishonored check, estafa requires deceit and damage to the payee, which are not essential elements under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. The latter law punishes the mere issuance of a check without sufficient funds, which is dishonored upon presentment, regardless of whether it was issued for a pre-existing obligation or whether deceit was employed. The Court emphasized that Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is considered a crime against public interest, affecting the banking system, whereas estafa is a crime against property. Furthermore, violations of B.P. Blg. 22 are classified as mala prohibita, while estafa is mala in se. The legislative intent behind Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 was to curb the proliferation of bouncing checks, and Section 5 of the law explicitly states that prosecution thereunder is without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, a single act can give rise to multiple offenses, and prosecution for the same act is not prohibited if the offenses are distinct in their essential elements. On the propriety of certiorari: The Court reiterated that when a motion to quash a criminal case is denied, the proper remedy is not certiorari. Instead, the accused should proceed to trial without prejudice to reiterating the special defenses invoked in the motion. If an adverse decision is rendered after trial on the merits, the accused may then appeal the decision in the manner authorized by law. The Court cited previous rulings in Acharon v. Purisima, et al. and People v. Magdaluyo to support this procedural rule. Allowing certiorari at this stage would unduly delay the proceedings and circumvent the established procedural remedies available to an accused.
Main Doctrine
The prosecution of an accused for estafa under Article 315 (2-d) of the Revised Penal Code and for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 for issuing the same bouncing checks does not constitute double jeopardy because they are distinct offenses with different elements and penalties, and prosecution under one does not preclude prosecution under the other.