Aquino vs.

Acosta
Facts:
On November 21, 2000, she reported for work after her vacation in the U.S., bringing gifts
for the three !dges of the "#$, inc%!ding respondent. &hen he entered her room and
greeted her, s!dden%', he p!%%ed her towards him and kissed her on her cheek. On
(ecember 2), 2000, whi%e respondent was on o*cia% %eave, he ca%%ed comp%ainant b' phone,
sa'ing he wi%% get something in her o*ce. #hereafter, he entered her room and greeted her,
+,err' "hristmas+ then embraced her and kissed her. On 1
st
-an!ar' 2001, respondent
phoned comp%ainant, asking if she co!%d see him in his chambers in order to disc!ss some
matters. &hen comp%ainant arrived there, respondent tried to kiss her b!t she was ab%e to
evade his se.!a% attempt.
/ss!e: &hether or not -!dge $costa is g!i%t' of se.!a%%' harassment.
0e%d: No, -!dge $costa is not g!i%t' of se.!a% harassment. 0e is e.onerated of the charges
against him and is advised to be more circ!mspect in his deportment.
1$ mere cas!a% b!ss on the cheek is not a se.!a% cond!ct or favor and does not fa%% within
the p!rview of se.!a% harassment !nder 2.$. No. 3)33. Section 4 5a6
#he e%ements of se.!a% harassment are as fo%%ows:
16 #he emp%o'er, emp%o'ee, manager, s!pervisor, agent of the emp%o'er, teacher,
instr!ctor, professor, coach, trainor, or an' other person has a!thorit', in7!ence or
mora% ascendanc' over another8
26 #he a!thorit', in7!ence or mora% ascendanc' e.ists in a working environment8
46 #he emp%o'er, emp%o'ee, manager, s!pervisor, agent of the emp%o'er, teacher,
instr!ctor, professor, coach, or an' other person having a!thorit', in7!ence or mora%
ascendanc' makes a demand, re9!est or re9!irement of a se.!a% favor.:
/ndeed, from the records on hand, there is no showing that respondent !dge demanded,
re9!ested or re9!ired an' se.!a% favor from comp%ainant in e.change for favorab%e
compensation, terms, conditions, promotion or privi%eges speci;ed !nder Section 4 of 2.$.
3)33. Nor did he, b' his act!ations, vio%ate the "anons of -!dicia% <thics or the "ode of
=rofessiona% 2esponsibi%it'.
Jacutin vs. People of the Philippines
Facts:
-!%iet >. ?ee, then a 22@'ear o%d fresh grad!ate of n!rsing, averred that on 2) November
1AAB her father accompanied her to the o*ce of petitioner at the "it' 0ea%th O*ce to seek
emp%o'ment. -!%ietCs father and petitioner were chi%dhood friends. =etitioner %ater oDered
her the ob where she wo!%d be the s!bect of a 1research: program.
=etitioner then in9!ired whether she had varicose veins, and she said 1no.: =etitioner to%d
her to raise her foot and %ower her pants so that he might con;rm it. She fe%t ass!red that it
was a%% part of the research. =etitioner sti%% p!shed her pants down to her knees and he%d
her thigh. 0e p!t his hands inside her pant' !nti% he reached her p!bic hair. S!rprised, she
e.c%aimed 1hala kaE: and instinctive%' p!%%ed her pants !p. =etitioner then to!ched her
abdomen with his right hand sa'ing words of endearment and %etting the back of his pa%m
to!ch her forehead. 0e to%d her to raise her shirt to check whether she had nodes or %!mps.
She hesitated for a whi%e b!t, event!a%%', raised it !p to her nave%. =etitioner then fond%ed
her breast. Shocked at what petitioner did, she %owered her shirt and embraced her bag to
cover herse%f, te%%ing him angri%' that she was thro!gh with the research. 0e begged her not
to te%% an'bod' abo!t what had !st happened. Fefore she a%ighted from the car, petitioner
!rged her to reconsider her decision to 9!it. 0e then handed over to her =400.00 for her
e.penses.
/ss!e: &hether or not petitioner is g!i%t' of the crime of se.!a% harassment as de;ned and
p!nished !nder 2.$. 3)33.
0e%d:
?es. 1S<". 4. &ork, <d!cation or #raining@re%ated Se.!a% 0arassment (e;ned. G &ork,
ed!cation or training@re%ated se.!a% harassment is committed b' an emp%o'er, emp%o'ee,
manager, s!pervisor, agent of the emp%o'er, teacher, instr!ctor, professor, coach, trainor, or
an' other person who, having a!thorit', in7!ence or mora% ascendanc' over another in a
work or training or ed!cation environment, demands, re9!ests or otherwise re9!ires an'
se.!a% favor from the other, regard%ess of whether the demand, re9!est or re9!irement for
s!bmission is accepted b' the obect of said $ct.
15a6 /n a work@re%ated or emp%o'ment environment, se.!a% harassment is committed
when:
1516 #he se.!a% favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the emp%o'ment, re@
emp%o'ment or contin!ed emp%o'ment of said individ!a%, or in granting said individ!a%
favorab%e compensation, terms, conditions, promotions, or privi%eges8 or the ref!sa% to grant
the se.!a% favor res!%ts in %imiting, segregating or c%assif'ing the emp%o'ee which in an' wa'
wo!%d discriminate, deprive or diminish emp%o'ment opport!nities or otherwise adverse%'
aDect said emp%o'ee.:
/ndeed, petitioner wo!%d not have been ab%e to take !nd!e %ibera%ities on the person of -!%iet
had it not been for his high position in the "it' 0ea%th O*ce of "aga'an de Oro "it'. #he
;ndings of the Sandiganba'an were bo%stered b' the testimon' of Hivian ?!, petitionerCs
secretar' between 1A3A to 1AAI, of /r'n Jago Sa%cedo, =!b%ic 0ea%th N!rse //, and of Farah
(onga%%o ' $%k!ino, a cit' hea%th n!rse, a%% of whom were said to have %ikewise been victims
of perverse behavior b' petitioner.
People v. Genosa
F$"#S:
,arivic Kenosa was convicted of =arricide for ki%%ing his %egitimate h!sband Fen
Kenosa and with the aggravating circ!mstance of treacher', she was meted the pena%t' of
death. #he case was e%evated to the S" for a!tomatic review.
$ppe%%ant s!bse9!ent%' ;%ed an Urgent Omnib!s ,otion pra'ing for her e.amination
b' e.pert ps'cho%ogists and ps'chiatrist and the reception of %atterLs reports to prove her
c%aim of se%f@defense on the theor' of battered woman s'ndrome.
#he S" remanded the case to the tria% co!rt for the reception of e.pert
ps'cho%ogica%Mps'chiatric opinion on the p%ea of battered woman s'ndrome.
,arivic Kenosa was e.amined b' (ra. Natividad $. (a'an, a c%inica% ps'cho%ogist,
who testi;ed that ,arivic +;ts the pro;%e of a battered woman+ and b' (r. $%fredo =arai%%o, a
ps'chiatrist, who +e.p%ained that with Lne!rotic an.iet'L, the victim re%ieves the beating or
tra!ma as if it were rea%, a%tho!gh she is not act!a%%' beaten at that time+ and that at the
time ,arivic ki%%ed her h!sband, her +menta% condition was that she was +re@e.periencing
the tra!ma.L #hat the +re@e.periencing of the tra!ma is not contro%%ed b' ,arivic. /t wi%% !st
come in 7ashes . . ..+
/SSU<S:
16 &hether or not appe%ant acted in se%f@defense.
26 &hether or not treacher' attended the ki%%ing.
0<J(:
16 #he S" he%d that the defense fai%ed to estab%ish a%% the e%ements of se%f@defense
arising from battered woman s'ndrome, to wit:
a6 <ach of the phases of the c'c%e of vio%ence m!st be proven to have characteriNed at %east
two battering episodes between the appe%%ant and her intimate partner.
b6 #he ;na% ac!te battering episode preceding the ki%%ing of the batterer m!st have
prod!ced in the battered personLs mind an act!a% fear of an imminent harm from her
batterer and an honest be%ief that she needed to !se force in order to save her %ife.
c6 $t the time of the ki%%ing, the batterer m!st have posed probab%e@@not necessari%'
immediate and act!a%@@grave harm to the acc!sed, based on the histor' of vio%ence
perpetrated b' the former against the %atter.
26 #he S" r!%ed o!t treacher' as an aggravating circ!mstance beca!se the 9!arre% or
arg!ment that preceded the ki%%ing m!st have forewarned the victim of the assai%antLs
aggression.
URSUA vs. COURT OF APPEALS AN PEOPLE OF T!E P!"L"PP"NES
FACTS#
=etitioner wrote the name 1Oscar =ereN: in the visitorCs %ogbook and !sed the same in
receiving the cop' of a comp%aint against him at the O*ce of the Omb!dsman. #his was
discovered and reported to the (ep!t' Omb!dsman who recommended that the petitioner
be according%' charged. #ria% "o!rt fo!nd the petitioner g!i%t' of vio%ating Sec.1 of ".$. No.
1I2 as amended b' 2.$. No. O0)B otherwise known as :An Act to Regulate the Use of
Aliases1. #he "o!rt of $ppea%s a*rmed the conviction with some modi;cation of sentence.
"SSUE#
&hether or not the !se of a%ias in iso%ated transaction fa%%s within the prohibition of
"ommonwea%th $ct No. 1I2.
!EL#
NO. #he 9!estioned decision of the "o!rt of $ppea%s a*rming that of the 2#" was reversed
and set aside and petitioner was ac9!itted of the crime charged
RAT"O#
P$Qn alias is a name or names !sed b' a person or intended to be !sed b' him p!b%ic%' and
habit!a%%' !s!a%%' in b!siness transactions in addition to his rea% name b' which he is
registered at birth or baptiNed the ;rst time or s!bstit!te name a!thoriNed b' a competent
a!thorit'. $ manCs name is simp%' the so!nd or so!nds b' which he is common%' designated
b' his fe%%ows and b' which the' disting!ish him b!t sometimes a man is known b' severa%
diDerent names and these are known as aliases. 0ence, the !se of a ;ctitio!s name or a
diDerent name be%onging to another person in a sing%e instance witho!t an' sign or
indication that the !ser intends to be known b' this name in addition to his rea% name from
that da' forth does not fa%% within the prohibition contained in ".$. No. 1I2 as amended. #his
is so in the case at bench.&hi%e the act of petitioner ma' be covered b' other provisions of
%aw, s!ch does not constit!te an oDense within the concept of ".$. No. 1I2 as amended
!nder which he is prosec!ted. ,oreover, as ".$. No. 1I2 is a pena% stat!te, it sho!%d be
constr!ed strict%' against the State and in favor of the acc!sed. #he reason for this princip%e
is the tenderness of the %aw for the rights of individ!a%s and the obect is to estab%ish a
certain r!%e b' conformit' to which mankind wo!%d be safe, and the discretion of the co!rt
%imited.
O$"NGO vs RA%ALA
F$"#S:
,a. Jo!rdes #. (omingo, then Stenographic 2eporter /// at the NJ2", ;%ed a "omp%aint for
se.!a% harassment against 2a'a%a before Secretar' Fienvenido Jag!esma of the
(epartment of Jabor and <mp%o'ment 5(OJ<6. #he committee constit!ted fo!nd 2a'a%a
g!i%t' of the oDense charged. 2a'a%a asserts that (omingo has fai%ed to a%%ege and estab%ish
an' se.!a% favor, demand, or re9!est from petitioner in e.change for her contin!ed
emp%o'ment or for her promotion. $ccording to 2a'a%a, the acts imp!ted to him are witho!t
ma%ice or !%terior motive. /t was mere%' (omingoCs perception of ma%ice in his a%%eged acts G
a +prod!ct of her own imagination+
2B
G that %ed her to ;%e the se.!a% harassment comp%aint.
/SSU<: &ON 2a'a%a is g!i%t' of Se.!a% 0arassment
2UJ/NK:
#he %aw pena%iNing se.!a% harassment in o!r !risdiction is 2$ 3)33. Section 4 thereof
de;nes work@re%ated se.!a% harassment in this wise:
Sec. 4. &ork, <d!cation or #raining@re%ated Se.!a% 0arassment (e;ned. G &ork,
ed!cation or training@re%ated se.!a% harassment is committed b' an emp%o'er,
manager, s!pervisor, agent of the emp%o'er, teacher, instr!ctor, professor, coach,
trainor, or an' other person who, having a!thorit', in7!ence or mora% ascendanc'
over another in a work or training or ed!cation environment, demands, re9!ests or
otherwise re9!ires an' se.!a% favor from the other, regard%ess of whether the
demand, re9!est or re9!irement for s!bmission is accepted b' the obect of said $ct.
5a6 /n a work@re%ated or emp%o'ment environment, se.!a% harassment is committed
when:
516 #he se.!a% favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the emp%o'ment, re@
emp%o'ment or contin!ed emp%o'ment of said individ!a%, or in granting said
individ!a% favorab%e compensation, terms, conditions, promotions, or privi%eges8 or
the ref!sa% to grant the se.!a% favor res!%ts in %imiting, segregating or c%assif'ing the
emp%o'ee which in a wa' wo!%d discriminate, deprive or diminish emp%o'ment
opport!nities or otherwise adverse%' aDect said emp%o'ee8
526 #he above acts wo!%d impair the emp%o'eeCs rights or privi%eges !nder e.isting
%abor %aws8 or
546 #he above acts wo!%d res!%t in an intimidating, hosti%e, or oDensive environment
for the emp%o'ee.
/t is tr!e that this provision ca%%s for a +demand, re9!est or re9!irement of a se.!a% favor.+
"ontrar' to 2a'a%aCs c%aim, it is not essentia% that the demand, re9!est or re9!irement be
made as a condition for contin!ed emp%o'ment or for promotion to a higher position. /t is
eno!gh that the respondentCs acts res!%t in creating an intimidating, hosti%e or oDensive
environment for the emp%o'ee.
IB
#hat the acts of 2a'a%a generated an intimidating and
hosti%e environment for (omingo is c%ear%' shown b' the common fact!a% ;nding of the
/nvestigating "ommittee, the O= and the "$ that (omingo reported the matter to an
o*cemate and, after the %ast incident, ;%ed for a %eave of absence and re9!ested transfer to
another !nit.
Ansel&o Li& !o' vs Repu(lic
F$"#S:
#he appe%%ant, $nse%mo Jim 0ok $%bano, alias Jim 0ok, alias Jim 0ok $nse%mo $%bano, ;%ed a
petition for nat!ra%iNation which, after d!e tria%, was granted b' the "o!rt of First /nstance of
/%ocos Norte. Upon the e.piration of the two@'ear probationa% period re9!ired in Section 1,
2ep!b%ic $ct No. B40, a petition was ;%ed for the appe%%antLs oath@taking and the iss!ance of
his nat!ra%iNation certi;cate. $fter hearing, the %ower co!rt denied the petition and a
s!bse9!ent motion for reconsideration. #he appea%ed order of denia% was based on the
arg!ment that the appe%%ant has been !sing aliases in vio%ation of "ommonwea%th $ct No.
1I2. /n the petition for nat!ra%iNation it was a%%eged that appe%%antLs f!%% name is $nse%mo Jim
0ok $%bano, alias Jim 0ok alias Jim 0ok $nse%mo $%bano8 and it is contended for the
appe%%ant that an' opposition based on the a%%eged i%%ega% !sed b' the appe%%ant of aliases
sho!%d have been interposed d!ring the hearing and before the granting of the petition for
nat!ra%iNation.
/SSU<:
&hether appe%%antLs !se of aliases comes within the contemp%ation of "ommonwea%th $ct
No. 1I2
2UJ/NK:
/t is noteworth' that this %aw is not vio%ated if one !ses a name with which he was christened
or b' which he has been known since chi%dhood. /t is a matter of record that the name +Jim
0ok+ is one b' which the appe%%ant has been known since chi%dhood and that, a%tho!gh he
was baptiNed as $nse%mo Jim 0ok, he has a%wa's added +$%bano+, the s!rname of his
godfather, (ionisio $%bano, in connection with his b!siness and socia% dea%ings, mere%' to
emphasiNe his identit'. #here is no showing that conf!sion or pre!dice ever was or has been
ca!sed b' the addition of that s!rname, the eDect that "ommonwea%th $ct No. 1I2 seeks to
prevent. &e are not th!s prepared to ho%d that the appe%%ant has vio%ated the $nti@$%ias Jaw.
ONG !OC) L"AN *S REPU+L"C
F$"#S:
$ppe%%ee, a citiNen of the 2ep!b%ic of "hina, arrived in the =hi%ippines on $pri% 40, 1A23. 0e
!sed to reside in Ramboanga "it' b!t since ,arch 1, 1AI0 he has been %iving in (!mag!ete
"it'. 0e is married to #an So Siem, a%so known as $%ice #an, a "hinese nationa%, b' whom he
has three chi%dren. $ merchant b' occ!pation, he has a store in "o%on Street, (!mag!ete
"it' where he se%%s rice, corn and genera% merchandise. 0is net income was =B,A4A.4O in
1AB)8 =I,11I.IA in 1ABA, and =B,OBA.40 in 1AO0. #o prove that he has none of the
dis9!a%i;cations en!merated in the Nat!ra%iNation Jaw, he presented ta. and po%ice
c%earances8 c%earances from the =hi%ippine "onstab!%ar', the "it' Fisca%, the =rovincia% Fisca%,
the "o!rt of First /nstance of Negros Orienta% and the ,!nicipa% "o!rt of (!mag!ete "it'8
and a medica% certi;cate of the "it' 0ea%th O*cer.
/SSU<:
&ON the $ppe%%ee vio%ated the $nti@$%ias Jaw
2UJ/NK:
Under the %aw, e.cept as a pse!don'm for %iterar' p!rposes, no person sha%% !se an' name
diDerent from the one with which he was christened or b' which he has been known since
chi%dhood, or s!ch s!bstit!te name as ma' have been a!thoriNed b' a competent co!rt
5Section 1, "ommonwea%th $ct 1I26. $side from the name +Ong 0ock Jian,+ appe%%ee is !sing
the alias +-!%ian Ong.+ #here is no evidence that appe%%ee has been baptiNed with the %atter
name or that he has been known b' it since chi%dhood, or that the co!rt has a!thoriNed the
!se thereof. $ppe%%ee has therefore committed a vio%ation of the $nti@$%ias Jaw.
PEOPLE *S ESTRAA
F$"#S:
$n /nformation for was ;%ed with the Sandiganba'an against respondent <strada, among
other acc!sed. $ separate /nformation for i%%ega% !se of a%ias, docketed as "rim. "ase No.
2OBOB, was %ikewise ;%ed against <strada. $t the tria%, the =eop%e presented testimonia% and
doc!mentar' evidence to prove the a%%egations of the /nformations for p%!nder, i%%ega% !se of
a%ias, and per!r'. /n his defense, <strada c%aimed that he did not p!b%ic%' !se the a%ias +-ose
He%arde+. =eop%e invokes to avoid the app%ication of the Urs!a r!%ing proceeds from <stradaCs
position in the government8 at the time of the commission of the oDense, he was the
=resident of the 2ep!b%ic who is re9!ired b' %aw to disc%ose his tr!e name.
/SSU<:
&ON <strada vio%ated the $nti@$%ias Jaw
2UJ/NK:
/n ;nding the absence of the re9!isite p!b%icit', we simp%' %ooked at the tota%it' of the
circ!mstances obtaining in <stradaCs !se of the a%ias +-ose He%arde+ vis@T@vis the Urs!a
re9!isites. &e do not decide here whether <stradaCs !se of an a%ias when he occ!pied the
highest e.ec!tive position in the %and was va%id and %ega%8 we simp%' determined, as the
Sandiganba'an did, whether he ma' be made %iab%e for the oDense charged based on the
evidence the =eop%e presented. $s with an' other acc!sed, his g!i%t m!st be based on the
evidence and proof be'ond reasonab%e do!bt that a ;nding of crimina% %iabi%it' re9!ires. /f
the =eop%e fai%s to discharge this b!rden, as the' did fai% in this case, the r!%e of %aw re9!ires
that we so dec%are. &e do so now in this review and according%' ;nd no reversib%e error of
%aw in the assai%ed Sandiganba'an r!%ing.
ER$"TANO *S CA
F$"#S:

J!is <rmitaUo was a F=/ <.press "ard "orporation 5F<""6 credit cardho%der whi%e his wife, ,an!e%ita
<rmitaUo, was an e.tension cardho%der. On $!g!st 2A, 1A)A, ,an!e%itaCs bag which contained the credit
card was snatched in ,akati. /mmediate%', she reported the %oss and thereafter sent written notice to F<"".
F<"" however, bi%%ed J!is for p!rchases made on $!g!st 40, 1A)A thro!gh ,an!e%itaCs %ost card tota%ing
=4,1A3.30. #o !stif' the bi%%ing, F<"" cited the fo%%owing stip!%ation in their contract: 1 the cardho%der
contin!es to be %iab%e for the p!rchases made thro!gh the !se of the %ostMsto%en F=/ <.press "ard !nti% after
s!ch notice has been given to F<"" and the %atter has comm!nicated s!ch %ossMtheft to its member
estab%ishments.:
/SSU<: whether or not the stip!%ation on notice re9!ired b' F<"" in case of %oss or theft of the credit card is
va%id.
0<J(:
#he S!preme "o!rt he%d in the negative. =rompt notice b' the cardho%der to the credit card compan' of the
%oss or theft of his card sho!%d be eno!gh to re%ieve the former of an' %iabi%it' occasioned b' the
!na!thoriNed !se of his %ost or sto%en card. #he 9!estioned stip!%ation in this case, which sti%% re9!ires the
cardho%der to wait !nti% the credit card compan' has noti;ed a%% its member@estab%ishments, p!ts the
cardho%der at the merc' of the credit card compan' which ma' de%a' inde;nite%' the noti;cation of its
members to minimiNe if not to e%iminate the possibi%it' of inc!rring an' %oss from !na!thoriNed p!rchases.
Or, as in this case, the credit card compan' ma' for some reason fai% to prompt%' notif' its members thro!gh
abso%!te%' no fa!%t of the cardho%der. #o re9!ire the cardho%der to sti%% pa' for !na!thoriNed p!rchases after
he has given prompt notice of the %oss or theft of his card to the credit card compan' wo!%d simp%' be !nfair
and !n!st. #he "o!rt cannot give its assent to s!ch a stip!%ation which co!%d c%ear%' r!n against p!b%ic
po%ic'
$ichael Pa,ua vs People of the Philippines
Facts#
=etitioner, who was then 13 'ears o%d, was invo%ved in se%%ing i%%ega% dr!gs. /nitia%%' in
his arraignment he p%eaded not g!i%t' b!t re@entered his p%ea of g!i%t' to avai% the bene;ts of
;rs time oDenders. S!bse9!ent%', he app%ied for probation b!t was denied. /n his petition for
certiorari, the co!rt said that probation and s!spension of sentence are diDerent and
provisions in =( O04 or 2$ A4II cannot be invoked to avai% probation. /t is speci;ca%%' stated
that in dr!g tra*cking, app%ication for probation sho!%d be denied. $s a side iss!e, the co!rt
disc!ssed the avai%ment of s!spension of sentence !nder 2$ A4II.
"SSUE
&hether s!spension of sentence !nder 2$ A4II can sti%% be invoked given the fact
that the acc!sed is now 21 'ears o%d.
!EL
NO. #he s!spension of sentence !nder Section 4) of 2ep. $ct No. A4II co!%d no
%onger be retroactive%' app%ied for petitionerCs bene;t. Section 4) of 2ep. $ct No. A4II
provides that once a chi%d !nder 1) 'ears of age is fo!nd g!i%t' of the oDense charged,
instead of prono!ncing the !dgment of conviction, the co!rt sha%% p%ace the chi%d in con7ict
with the %aw !nder s!spended sentence. Section I0 of 2ep. $ct No. A4II, however, provides
that once the chi%d reaches 1) 'ears of age, the co!rt sha%% determine whether to discharge
the chi%d, order e.ec!tion of sentence, or e.tend the s!spended sentence for a certain
speci;ed period o- until the chil, -eaches the &a.i&u& a/e of 01 2ea-s. =etitioner
has a%read' reached 21 'ears of age or over and th!s, co!%d no %onger be considered a
chi%d for p!rposes of app%'ing 2ep. $ct A4II. #h!s, the app%ication of Sections 4) and I0
appears moot and academic as far as his case is concerned.
S/$ HS =<O=J<
F$"#S:
#he "onso%idated Orient Jeasing and Finance "orporation 5"OJF6, as Jessor, and &i%%' K. Sia,
the so%e proprietor of &KS "onstr!ction Specia%ists, as Jessee, e.ec!ted a Jease $greement,
for a period of eighteen 51)6 months, covering constr!ction e9!ipments. Sia and his wife,
-!d', e.ec!ted a s!ret' agreement in which the' bo!nd and ob%iged themse%ves, oint%' and
severa%%', to ins!re the proper and d!e performance of SiaCs ob%igations to the "OJF !nder
the %ease agreement.
Sia remitted to the "OJF the agreed g!arant' deposit. 0e a%so iss!ed and de%ivered to the
"OJF, !pon the e.ec!tion of the %ease agreement in 1A)2, eighteen 51)6 postdated checks
pa'ab%e to the "OJ#, drawn against his acco!nt with the 2"F". <ach check was to be
encashed or deposited b' the "OJF in its acco!nt on their respective d!e dates in pa'ment
of the month%' renta% of the e9!ipment.
#he "OJF deposited the checks for these checks were d!%' honored b' the drawee bank. #he
"OJF wrote Sia on -an!ar' B, 1A)4, informing the %atter of the dishonor of the check and
re9!esting for the rep%acement thereof. #he "OJF ;na%%' decided to terminate the %ease and,
on ,arch 10, 1A)4, wrote Sia informing him that it was terminating the %ease agreement.
1B
Sia received the %etter b!t did not respond.
/SSU<:
&ON =etitioner vio%ated F= 22
2UJ/NK:
#he act so!ght to be prevented b' the %aw is the act of making and iss!ing a check with the
know%edge that, at the time of issue, the drawer iss!ing the check does not have
s!*cient f!nds in or credit with the bank for pa'ment and the check was s!bse9!ent%'
dishonored !pon presentment. &hat the %aw p!nishes is the iss!ance of a worth%ess check
and not the p!rpose for which s!ch check was iss!ed nor the terms or conditions re%ating to
its iss!ance. #he crime is one against p!b%ic order and is malum prohibitum. /n this case, the
prosec!tion fai%ed to prove that the "OJF or the drawee bank ever sent an' written notice of
dishonor of the s!bect checks to the petitioner and that the %atter received the same. #he
on%' witness presented b' the prosec!tion to prove its case against the petitioner was
<d!ardo 2. $%vareN, who was in charge of the "OJF co%%ection department. $ss!ming that the
petitioner had know%edge that he had ins!*cient f!nds in the drawee bank when he iss!ed
the 9!estioned checks, he co!%d sti%% have paid the checks or made arrangements with the
drawee bank for the pa'ment of the said checks if he had been d!%' noti;ed of their
dishonor. /n not sending a notice or %etter of dishonor to the petitioner as re9!ired b' %aw,
the "OJF deprived the petitioner of his right to avoid prosec!tion for vio%ation of F.=. F%g. 22.
#he =etitioner is $c9!itted.