DIONGZON v. CA & People of the Philippines


DIONGZON V. CA & People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 114823 
December 23, 1999


FACTS
Diongzon (accused) was a sales supervisor of Filipro Incorporated (now Nestle Philippines, Inc.).

Due to the finding by Filipro accounting department that some delivery orders signed by the accused seemed questionable, Anacleto Palisoc, area sales manager, was authorized to conduct an investigation.

3 dealers having received the goods listed in the delivery orders signed by the accused.

The accused approached Rene Garibay, sales representative, and offered his assistance in the collection of payments for the outstanding delivery orders.

The next day the accused presented to him (Garibay) 3 checks in payment of the items listed in the invoices allegedly issued to the 3 dealers. However, upon presentment to the drawee bank, the three checks were dishonored.

The first 2 checks were dishonored because of the apparent difference between the drawer's signatures thereon and those in the bank's files.

The third check was dishonored for insufficiency of funds.

A complaint for violation of B.P. 22 was filed against the accused.

TRIAL COURT: GUILTY
CA: AFFIRMED CONVICTION

ACCUSED FILED PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI.
ACCUSED’S MAIN DEFENSE:
because of the incompatibility between the 3rd check and the partial payment and written undertaking he executed, there was a novation of his original obligation so that any incipient criminal liability which he might have had under the former obligation was thereby avoided.



ISSUES
1. Whether or not there was novation? NO
2. Whether or not novation extinguishes criminal liability? NO



RULING
1. NO, THERE WAS NOVATION.
The following requisites must be present for novation to take place:
(1) a previous valid obligation;
(2) agreement of all the parties to the new contract;
(3) extinguishment of the old contract;
(4) validity of the new one

These requisites, particularly the third, were not proven in this case.

The transaction became a personal undertaking of the petitioner when he received the goods for delivery but made no delivery thereof either to the credited dealer or to the credit rider.

Petitioner had an existing obligation to pay the value of the goods for which the check was issued. This obligation was not extinguished when the check was dishonored and a new agreement was reached by the two parties to pay in cash its value.

The change in the mode of paying the obligation was not a change in any of the objects or principal conditions of the contract.

Neither acceptance of partial payment nor change of place or manner of payment involves novation.

Novation cannot be presumed but must be expressly intended by the parties

2. NO, NOVATION IS NOT A MODE OF EXTINGUISHING CRIMINAL LIABILITY.
Criminal liability, once incurred, cannot be compromised.

Novation "may only prevent the rise of criminal liability as long as it occurs prior to the filing of the criminal information in court."  In other words, novation does not extinguish criminal liability but may only prevent its rise.

ACCUSED
SC
the new agreement took effect prior to the filing of the information in court

He argues that, therefore, there could not have been any criminal liability under B.P. Blg. 22.
The argument is untenable.

The fact is that the supposed new agreement never took effect as petitioner never complied with his undertaking.

The novation theory does not apply where the offer to pay by the debtor, and accepted by the creditor, turns out to be merely an empty promise. In this case, the balance of the check was never paid, as witness Anacleto B. Palisoc testified.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with the modification that subsidiary imprisonment be imposed in case of insolvency to pay the fine of P80,647.75.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CIR v. DLSU

  COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY, INC., [G.R. No. 196596. November 9, 2016.]   FACTS: In 2004, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued to DLSU Letter of Authority (LOA) No. 2794 authorizing its revenue officers to examine the latter's books of accounts and other accounting records for all internal revenue taxes for the period Fiscal Year Ending 2003 and Unverified Prior Years. BIR through a Formal Letter of Demand assessed DLSU the following deficiency taxes: (1) income tax on rental earnings from restaurants/canteens and bookstores operating within the campus; (2) VAT business income; and (3) documentary stamp tax (DST) on loans and lease contracts. The BIR demanded the payment of P17,303,001.12, inclusive of surcharge, interest and penalty for taxable years 2001, 2002 and 2003. DLSU protested the assessment. The Commissioner failed to act on the protest; thus, DLSU filed on August 3, 2005 a petition for review with the CTA Division. ...
Read more

DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs. IAC

  DIRECTOR OF LANDS V. IAC   G.R. No. 73002 | December 29, 1986 FACTS The Director of Lands has brought this appeal by certiorari from a judgment of the IAC affirming a decision of the CFI of Isabela, which ordered registration in favor of Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc. of 5 parcels of land, acquired by it from Mariano and Acer Infiel , members of the Dumagat tribe .   The appealed judgment sums up the findings of the trial court: That Acme Plywood & Veneer Co. Inc., represented by Mr. Rodolfo Nazario is a corporation duly organized in accordance with the laws That Acme Plywood & Veneer Co. Inc., represented by Mr. Rodolfo Nazario can acquire real properties pursuant to the provisions of the Articles of Incorporation That the land subject of the Land Registration proceeding was ancestrally acquired by Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc., on October 29, 1962, from Mariano Infiel and Acer Infiel, both members of ...
Read more

CIR v. PAGCOR

  COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner , vs. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, and PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, respondents   G.R. No. 177387, November 9, 2016   FACTS :   PAGCOR has operated under a legislative franchise granted by PD No. 1869, in its Charter, 4 whose Section 13 (2) provides that: (2) Income and other Taxes — (a) Franchise Holder: No tax of any kind or form, income or otherwise, as well as fees, charges or levies of whatever nature, whether National or Local, shall be assessed and collected under this Franchise from the Corporation; nor shall any form of tax or charge attach in any way to the earnings of the Corporation, except a Franchise Tax of five percent (5%) of the gross revenue or earnings derived by the Corporation from its operation under this Franchise.   Notwithstanding the aforesaid 5% franchise tax imposed, the BIR issued several assessments against PAGCOR of P13,710,145,629.67 for alleged defic...
Read more