In Susan Go v. Fernando L. Dimagiba, the Supreme Court clarified that Administrative Circular 12-2000, which provides a preference for imposing fines over imprisonment for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), does not apply retroactively to cases where the judgment is already final. The Court emphasized that the circular serves as a guideline for trial courts in imposing penalties based on the specific circumstances of each case, and it does not confer any new rights to those already convicted. This means that if a conviction under BP 22 has become final, it cannot be modified based on the circular, reinforcing the principle of the immutability of final judgments.

Checks and Balances: When Can a Final Judgment Be Questioned?

This case arose from Fernando L. Dimagiba’s conviction for violating BP 22, also known as the Bouncing Checks Law, for issuing thirteen checks that were dishonored due to a closed account. After his conviction became final, Dimagiba sought to modify the sentence to a fine only, relying on Administrative Circular 12-2000, which suggests a preference for fines over imprisonment for BP 22 violations under certain circumstances. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted his petition for habeas corpus, ordering his release upon payment of a P100,000 fine. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, emphasizing the principle of finality of judgments and the limited applicability of habeas corpus.

The Supreme Court underscored that the writ of habeas corpus is a remedy against illegal confinement, and it cannot be used to challenge a detention based on a valid judgment. While it may be invoked post-conviction in exceptional circumstances such as deprivation of constitutional rights, lack of court jurisdiction, or excessive penalties, none of these applied in Dimagiba’s case. The Court noted that Dimagiba had previously sought to modify his sentence through motions that were denied, and his habeas corpus petition was essentially an attempt to reopen a final case, amounting to forum shopping.

The Court also clarified the purpose and scope of Administrative Circular 12-2000, as further explained by Administrative Circular 13-2001. These circulars establish a rule of preference in imposing penalties under BP 22, suggesting that a fine alone may be appropriate when the offender acted in good faith or made a clear mistake without negligence. However, the determination of the appropriate penalty remains within the discretion of the trial judge, based on the specific circumstances of each case.

The Supreme Court also explained that Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 is not a penal law and, therefore, does not have retroactive effect as contemplated under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code. This provision states that:

“Penal laws shall have a retroactive insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, x x x although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.”

As such, the circular applies only to pending cases or those in the future, not to cases already terminated by final judgment. To allow the retroactive application would undermine the principle of finality of judgments, which is essential for the stability and efficiency of the judicial system. As emphasized in the case of De Joya v. Jail Warden of Batangas City:

“First. SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 is not a penal law; hence, Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable. The circular applies only to those cases pending as of the date of its effectivity and not to cases already terminated by final judgment.”

Moreover, the Court found no basis to apply the doctrine of equal protection of the laws, which guarantees that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike. Dimagiba argued that he was denied equal protection because others similarly situated were being penalized with fines only. However, the Court clarified that the circular does not mandate a fine in all cases, and the appropriate penalty depends on the circumstances of each case.

In contrast to the case of So v. Court of Appeals, where a final judgment was modified due to extraordinary supervening events, Dimagiba’s case presented no such compelling circumstances. His claim of ill health lacked substantial proof, and the settlement of his civil liability after conviction did not justify modifying the criminal penalty. The Court reiterated that criminal liability is distinct from civil liability, and the purpose of BP 22 is to deter the issuance of worthless checks, which harms public interest.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of respecting final judgments and the limited grounds for challenging them through habeas corpus. By reversing the RTC’s decision, the Court reaffirmed the principle that judgments should be final and immutable, except in cases of grave injustice or extraordinary circumstances. The Court also clarified the scope and applicability of Administrative Circular 12-2000, ensuring that it is applied consistently with the law and the principles of judicial administration.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a final judgment of conviction for violation of BP 22 could be modified based on Administrative Circular 12-2000, which provides a preference for fines over imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that it could not.
What is BP 22?	BP 22, also known as the Bouncing Checks Law, penalizes the making or issuing of a check without sufficient funds or credit. It aims to deter the circulation of worthless checks, which harms public interest and the banking system.
What is Administrative Circular 12-2000?	Administrative Circular 12-2000 is a Supreme Court issuance that provides a rule of preference for imposing fines over imprisonment for violations of BP 22, under certain circumstances. It suggests that a fine alone may be appropriate when the offender acted in good faith or made a clear mistake without negligence.
Does Administrative Circular 12-2000 apply retroactively?	No, Administrative Circular 12-2000 does not apply retroactively to cases where the judgment of conviction is already final. It applies only to pending cases or those in the future.
What is a writ of habeas corpus?	A writ of habeas corpus is a legal remedy against illegal confinement or detention. It cannot be used to challenge a detention based on a valid judgment, except in exceptional circumstances such as deprivation of constitutional rights or lack of court jurisdiction.
What does “finality of judgment” mean?	“Finality of judgment” means that a decision of a court, once final, is conclusive and cannot be modified or altered, except in certain limited circumstances. This principle ensures the stability and efficiency of the judicial system.
What is the doctrine of equal protection of the laws?	The doctrine of equal protection of the laws guarantees that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike. However, this doctrine does not require the retroactive application of Administrative Circular 12-2000, as the appropriate penalty depends on the circumstances of each case.
Can civil liability affect criminal liability in BP 22 cases?	No, civil liability is distinct from criminal liability in BP 22 cases. The settlement of civil liability after conviction does not justify modifying the criminal penalty, as the purpose of BP 22 is to deter the issuance of worthless checks, which harms public interest.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Susan Go v. Fernando L. Dimagiba clarifies the limits of judicial discretion and the importance of respecting final judgments. It also serves as a reminder that administrative circulars are intended to guide the courts, but they cannot override the law or the principles of judicial administration. This ruling ensures that the stability and integrity of the judicial system are preserved, while providing guidance on the proper application of penalties in BP 22 cases.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: SUSAN GO AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. FERNANDO L. DIMAGIBA, G.R. NO. 151876, June 21, 2005