FACTS:

This case involves a petition for review assailing the orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which released Fernando Dimagiba from confinement and required him to pay a fine instead of imprisonment for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), the "Bouncing Checks Law." The facts of the case are not disputed. Dimagiba issued thirteen checks to Susan Go which were dishonored for the reason "account closed." Dimagiba was subsequently prosecuted for 13 counts of violation of BP 22 and was convicted by the Municipal Trial Court. The decision was appealed and upheld by the RTC. A Certificate of Finality of the Decision was issued and Dimagiba was arrested and imprisoned for the service of his sentence. Dimagiba filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus before the RTC, which granted his release and ordered him to pay a fine.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the writ of habeas corpus is proper in this case.

2. Whether the petitioner misused the action of a writ of habeas corpus amounting to forum shopping.

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the imposition of a fine alone as the penalty for the violation of BP 22.

4. Whether SC-AC No. 12-2000 is applicable in this case.

5. Whether the petitioner's imprisonment violates his right to equal protection of the laws.

6. Whether or not SC-AC No. 12-2000 can be retroactively applied to a case already terminated by final judgment.

7. Whether or not the modification of a final judgment in the guise of granting a writ of habeas corpus is warranted.

8. Whether or not the doctrine of equal protection of laws applies to the case.

9. Whether the issuance of worthless checks is criminalized under Philippine law

10. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the respondent's petition for habeas corpus

RULING:

1. The Court ruled that the writ of habeas corpus is not proper in this case because the petitioner has previously sought the modification of his sentence through motions which were denied by the trial court. His resort to this extraordinary remedy was a procedural infirmity and amounted to forum shopping.

2. The Court found that the petitioner misused the action of a writ of habeas corpus by attempting to reopen a case that had already become final and executory. Such action amounted to forum shopping.

3. The Court stated that the imposition of a fine alone as the penalty for the violation of BP 22 depends on the discretion of the trial judge, taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of each case. SC-AC No. 12-2000 did not delete the alternative penalty of imprisonment, and the competence to amend the law belongs to the legislature.

4. The Court ruled that SC-AC No. 12-2000 is not applicable in this case as the petitioner is not entitled to its benevolent policy since he is not a first-time offender. The penalty to be imposed depends on the peculiar circumstances of each case, and it is the trial court's discretion to impose any penalty within the confines of the law.

5. The Court held that the petitioner's imprisonment does not violate his right to equal protection of the laws. The rule on retroactivity allows criminal laws to be applied retroactively if favorable to the accused, but in this case, the petitioner failed to show that SC-AC No. 12-2000 would be favorable to him and that it violated his right to equal protection.

6. SC-AC No. 12-2000 cannot be retroactively applied to a case already terminated by final judgment.

7. The modification of a final judgment in the guise of granting a writ of habeas corpus is not warranted.

8. The doctrine of equal protection of laws does not apply to the case.

9. Yes, the issuance of worthless checks is criminalized under Philippine law. The Court reiterates that the act of issuing worthless checks is a public offense, as it has deleterious effects on public interest. The issuance of bounce checks is not punished for failure to pay an obligation but for the act of issuing checks that subsequently bounce or are dishonored due to insufficient or lack of funds. This practice is considered harmful and can have negative effects on the banking system, trade and commerce, and the welfare of society.

10. The Court of Appeals erred in granting the respondent's petition for habeas corpus. The Court nullifies the orders of the Court of Appeals and denies the respondent's petition for habeas corpus. The case is remanded to the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Baguio City for the re-arrest of the respondent and the completion of his sentence.

PRINCIPLES:

• The writ of habeas corpus applies to cases of illegal confinement or detention, and it is a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint.

• The writ of habeas corpus may not be availed of when the person in custody is under a judicial process or by virtue of a valid judgment, except in exceptional circumstances such as a deprivation of a constitutional right, lack of jurisdiction, or excessive penalty.

• The alternative penalties for the violation of BP 22 include imprisonment, a fine, or both, and the preference in the application of penalties depends on the circumstances of the case as determined by the trial judge.

• SC-AC No. 12-2000 established a rule of preference in imposing fines for BP 22 offenses, but the competence to amend the law belongs to the legislature.

• The imposition of a penalty for the violation of BP 22 depends on the peculiar circumstances of each case, and it is within the trial court's discretion to impose any penalty within the confines of the law.

• The rule on retroactivity states that criminal laws may be applied retroactively if favorable to the accused, but the accused must show that the retroactive application would be favorable to him and not violate his right to equal protection of the laws.

• SC-AC No. 12-2000 is not a penal law and does not apply retroactively.

• SC-AC No. 12-2000 merely lays down a rule of preference for the application of penalties for violation of B.P. Blg. 22.

• The competence to determine the proper penalty belongs to the court rendering the decision against the accused.

• A final judgment can only be appealed on grounds of errors of fact or law, or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

• The doctrine of equal protection of laws does not apply when the law in question is not one that deletes the penalty of imprisonment.

• The modification of a final judgment may be warranted by supervening events or higher interests of justice.

• Civil liability differs from criminal liability.

• The issuance of worthless checks is criminalized due to its negative effects on public interest, trade and commerce, and the banking system.

• The act of issuing bounce checks is considered an offense against public order, not just an offense against property.

• The practice of putting valueless commercial papers in circulation can harm the welfare of society and the interest of the community at large.