Digest Author: Dodot

Hernandez v. CA (1993) Petition: Certiorari [Review of Decision of CA] Petitioner: Danilo Hernandez Respondent: The Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines Ponente: J. Quiazon Date: 14 December 1993 Facts:

Danilo introducd by aunt to Remedios de Leon, who was in the business of buying and selling jewelry st o 1 transaction: paid in cash for jewelry o Subsequent transactions: paid in cash or post-dated checks Assailed transactions o 5 transactions, jewelry paid for using post-dated checks (except of 1, same date as transaction, but bank already closed at the time): 4 BPI checks signed by Danilo 1 ASB check signed by a certain Enrique Araneta o 3 BPI checks drawn against insufficient funds o 1 BPI check drawn against a closed account o 1 ASB check drawn against a closed account Danilo subsequently charged in 9 informations w/ the ESTAFA and for violations against BP Blg. 22 [Bouncing Check Law], with Cavite City RTC o Informations consolidated, heard in a joint trial o Danilo convicted of 9 charges in joint decision Danilo appealed to CA o CA affirmed 8 convictions o Reversed 1 Danilo elevated case to Supreme Court

Pertinent laws/provisions/concepts: Sec. 14, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution Sec. 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor. Art. 315, RPC [Crime of Estafa]

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow xxx xxx xxx Issues: 1. 2. BP Blg. 22 [Bouncing Check Law]

Conviction of 9 distinct offenses, subject of 9 separate informations in a single judgment a reversible error? [NO] Did the CA err in not disclosing complete findings of fact, contrary to Sec. 14, Art VIII? [NO]

Ruling/Ratio Decidendi: 1. NO. a) Case different from United States v. Tanjuatco o Tanjuatco error: improperly rendered single judgment for two offenses in one of the two criminal cases,

in the absence of a consolidation of the two cases Accused right to trial in each of the two cases Proofs adduced in each individual case, upon allegations set forth in each information Not permissible to take into account or consider in one case the facts proved in the other o Case at bar: 9 criminal cases conducted jointly, w/o objection from petitioner Even if petitioner had protested, such opposition would have been unavailing Consolidation of trials allowed in charges for offenses founded on the same facts, or forming a series of offenses of similar character
2. NO.

Digest Author: Dodot

a) Petitioner assigned 8 errors, but CA did not make a complete finding of fact as to the last two o Unnecessary to make separate findings of fact: last two errors were necessary consequences of previously enumerated assigned errors. CA simply adopted SolGens statement of facts, thus did not make its own independent judicial opinion o Consti. mandate: only requires that the decision should state the facts on which it is based: no prescription against adoption of narration of facts of one of the parties [as found in briefs, memoranda, etc.] CA, in concluding that there was no cogent reason that could justify the modification/reversal of the decision of the trial court, relied on a decision not supported by evidence o Petitioner alleged that the de Leon testimony was self-serving, thus inadmissible Self-serving: made out of court; cannot be cross-examined Thus, encourages fabrication of testi. o But the material testimonies were made in court, under oath Yolanda dela Rosa, for ex., testified for the prosecution Even of de Leons was the sole testimony would have been enough Vis--vis credibility of a witness: witnesses are to be weighed, not counted Petitioner ordered to pay civil indemnity, but no evidence presented to prove the existence, ownership, and worth of the pieces of jewelry o EXISTENCE of jewelry: established by the de Leon testimony as per testimony, Hernandez even selected pieces of jewelry before buying them o OWNERSHIP: not a necessary element of estafa All that is necessary is that the loss should have fallen on someone other than the perpetrator o PRICE agreed upon by petitioner and de Leon formed the basis of the civil indemnity RTC admitted checks in evidence, w/o the prosecution first proving that the signatures thereon were authentic o Petitioner is the one alleging forgery: THUS, he has the burden of proving that there indeed was forgery o he who alleges must prove RTC gave little weight to certification issued by San Juan Police station o Certification: Hernandez reported as lost the assailed checks o THEN, why did Hernandez NOT file a criminal case against de Leo, if the checks really were stolen? Petitioners theory: since the checks were deposited w/ Prudential Bank, the liability for such also falls with them o Petitioner cites Banco de Oro v. Equitable Banking Corp. but circumstances totally different In the BDO case, there was negligence of collecting bank, in facilitating payment of the drawee bank of a check w/ a forged endorsement and a forged signature o No such negligence by bank in the case at bar

b)

c)

d)

e)

f)

g)

Decision: Petition DENIED. Decision of CA AFFIRMED. Dissenting Opinion: None. Principles: The Judicial Department The Supreme Court Requirement as to Decisions Sec. 14, Art. VIII requires that, for every decision, there must be a detailing of the facts and laws that formed the basis of such.