CASE: Yu Oh v Court of

DATE: June 6, 2003

PONENTE: Austria-Martinez, J.
Topic: JURISDICTION

Appeals

FACTS:
Elvira Yu Oh (petitioner) bought jewelry from Solid Gold International Traders (private
respondent) but failed to pay purchase price. The company filed civil complaints against her for
specific performance with the Pasig Regional Trial Court. Joaquin Novales III, general manager of
Solid Gold, and the petitioner entered into a compromise agreement where petitioner was to
issue ninety-nine post-dated checks amounting to P50,000 each to be deposited every 15th and
30th of the month from Ocober 1990 to November 16, 1994. Balance of over P1 million was to be
paid in cash, lump sum, on November 16, 1994 as well.
Petioner issued 10 checks amounting to P50,000 each, drawn against her account in Equitable
Banking Corporation. When Novales deposited the checks with Far East Bank and Trust Company,
however, checks were dishonored as the account was already closed. Novales filed 10 separate
Informations. These were consolidated and raffled to Branch 99 of the Pasig RTC. RTC rendered a
decision finding the accused guilty of ten counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22, also known as the
Bouncing Checks Law . She was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for each count and
indemnification of P500.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals but the CA found it to be of no merit and affirmed the
RTCs decision.
ISSUES:
1.
Did the court err in not granting retroactive effect to R.A. 7691 in view of Art. 22 of the
RPC?
RULING:
Assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner is
acquitted of the ten counts for insufficiency of evidence but is ordered to pay P500,000 to the
private respondent, with 12% interest per annum from the date of finality of judgment.
REASONING:
1.
NO. The court did not err in not granting retroactive effect to R.A. 7691. R.A. No. 7691 is a
substantive law and not a penal law as nowhere in its provisions does it define a crime neither
does it provide a penalty of any kind; the purpose of enacting R.A. No. 7691 is laid down in
the opening sentence thereof as An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial
Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts and the Metropolitan Trial Court. whereby it
reapportions the jurisdiction of said courts to cover certain civil and criminal case, erstwhile
tried exclusively by the Regional Trial Courts; consequently, Art. 22 of the RPC finds no
application to the case at bar; jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at the time of the
filing of the complaint, and once acquired, jurisdiction is not affected by subsequent
legislative enactments placing jurisdiction in another tribunal; in this case, the RTC was
vested with jurisdiction to try petitioners cases when the same were filed in October 1992; at
that time, R.A. No. 7691 was not yet effective in so far as the retroactive effect of R.A. No.
7691 is concerned, that same is limited only to pending civil cases that have not reached pretrial stage as provided for in Section 7 thereof.