View full case

NORMA DE JOYA v. JAIL WARDEN OF BATANGAS CITY

FACTS:

Norma de Joya filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that her detention in Batangas City Jail was illegal. She was charged separately with violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities in Batangas City. The Informations alleged that she issued postdated checks to two different individuals, which were dishonored by the respective banks. She pleaded not guilty and jumped bail during trial. The trial court promulgated its decisions in both cases, finding Norma de Joya guilty and ordering her imprisonment. No appeal was filed from these decisions.

After five years, Norma de Joya was arrested and detained at the Batangas City Jail. She filed a motion with the trial court, seeking the retroactive application of Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, which mandates the imposition of a fine instead of imprisonment for violations of B.P. Blg. 22. The trial court denied the motion, stating that its decisions had already become final and executory. Norma de Joya then filed the present petition, arguing that the Circular should be applied retroactively. The Office of the Solicitor General opposed the petition, contending that the judgments had already attained finality and that the Circular did not delete the penalty of imprisonment for B.P. Blg. 22 cases.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus.

  2. Whether the petitioner can benefit from the reduction of penalty introduced by SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 as modified by SC Admin. Circular No. 13-2001.

  3. Whether the act of issuing worthless checks is an offense against public order.

  4. Whether the penalties imposed for the offense of issuing worthless checks must consider the reformative aspect as well.

RULING:

  1. The petitioner is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because she is in custody pursuant to a final judgment of conviction by the Municipal Trial Court.

  2. The petitioner cannot benefit from the reduction of penalty introduced by SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 as modified by SC Admin. Circular No. 13-2001 because the circulars do not remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty for violations of BP 22.

  3. Yes, the act of issuing worthless checks is an offense against public order. This is because the practice of putting valueless commercial papers in circulation can have deleterious effects on public interest, injure the banking system, and harm the welfare of society. The law prohibits such practice to protect the interest of the community at large.

  4. Yes, the penalties imposed for the offense of issuing worthless checks must consider the reformative aspect. Philippine penal law, based on the Spanish penal code and the positivist theory of criminal law, views the convict as a member of society. The purpose of penalties is to secure justice and give the convict an opportunity to live a new life and rejoin society as a productive member. Therefore, the court must take into account not only the primary elements of punishment but also the secondary elements such as the reformation of the offender and the prevention of further offenses.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The writ of habeas corpus is not allowed if the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in custody under process issued by a court or judge, or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record.

  • SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 and SC Admin. Circular No. 13-2001 do not remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty for violations of BP 22. They merely establish a rule of preference in the application of the penalties, giving the judges the discretion to determine whether a fine alone or imprisonment is more appropriate in each case.

  • The act of issuing worthless checks is considered an offense against public order due to its deleterious effects on public interest.

  • Penalties imposed for offenses must not only be retributive but also reformative, to give the convict an opportunity to live a new life and rejoin society as a productive member.

  • Philippine penal law considers the convict as a member of society and takes into account factors such as the convict's relationship towards dependents, family, society at large, and the state when determining the penalty to be imposed.