Cenzon v. Judge Abad Santos

29. Cenzon v. Judge Abad Santos; GR No.
164337 (2006)
Facts: Petitioner Cenzon filed with the Makati City Prosecution Office, four complaint-affidavits against
private respondent Sia for violation of BP 22 and Estafa under Article 315, par. 2(d) of the RPC, alleging
that the checks issued by South Pacific, through private respondent Sia, were dishonored upon due
presentment for having been the subject of a "stop payment order", and for having been "drawn against
insufficient funds". Despite demands made upon private respondent Sia and South Pacific to pay the
amounts represented by the face value of the subject checks, the same remained unheeded. The Makati
City Prosecution Office issued a Resolution recommending the dismissal of the complaint for Estafa, and
the filing of informations for four counts of violation of BP 22, and further recommending bail
of P30,000.00 for each count. On appeal by petitioner Cenzon to the DOJ, a Resolution was issued,
reversing and setting aside the Resolution of Makati City Prosecution Office, and directing the latter to
file two informations for Estafa. In accordance therewith, Prosecutor Hirang filed two informations
against private respondent Sia for violations of Article 315, par. 2(d) of the RPC, as amended by PD No.
818. The two informations involved two check, which covered the amounts of P15,840,000.00
and P91,776,970.00. The City Prosecutor recommended NO BAIL. Subsequently, in the hearing of 15
February 2002, the public prosecutor moved for the amendment of the informations from NO BAIL
RECOMMENDED to BAIL SET AT P60,000.00 for each count of Estafa. The amendment was sought on
the strength of DOJ Department Circular No. 74, issued on 6 November 2001, which specified the
amount of bail to be recommended, in cases of Estafa under Article 315, par. 2(d), as amended by PD
818. The RTC granted the public prosecutor’s motion.
However, it is petitioner Cenzon’s theory that NO BAIL is recommended in such cases, because the
penalty prescribed therein is reclusion perpetua. Petitioner Cenzon posits that the 2000 Bail Bond Guide
of the DOJ was made pursuant to Section 13, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that
crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, when evidence of guilt is strong, are not bailable.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner Cenzon’s reliance on the 2000 Bail Bond Guide of the DOJ is proper,
notwithstanding the subsequent issuance of DOJ Circular No. 74 on November 6, 2001.
Ruling: No. The Court is not impressed with petitioner Cenzon’s reliance on the 2000 Bail Bond Guide of
the DOJ. Evidently, Department Circular No. 74 of the DOJ amended the 2000 Bail Bond Guide, the
salient provisions thereof, reads thus:
WHEREAS, under the 2000 Bail Bond Guide, no bail is recommended for estafa under Art. 315 2(d), RPC,
as amended by PD 818, as well as for Qualified Theft when the amount of fraud or the value of the
property involved is P32,000.00 or over;
WHEREAS, such policy has already been overtaken and rendered untenable by the new jurisprudence,
particularly the ruling in People vs. Hernando, 317 SCRA 621 (1999);
WHEREFORE, in estafa under Art. 315 2(d), as amended by PD 818, and Qualified Theft, the bail to be
recommended shall be governed by the following rules:
A. FOR ESTAFA (ART. 315, 2(d), RPC, as amended by PD 818:
1) Where the amount of fraud involved does not exceed P22,000.00, bail shall be computed
based on the applicable provisions of the 2000 Bail Bond Guide.
2) Where the amount of fraud involved is more than P22,000.00 but less than P32,000.00, bail
shall be based on the maximum period of the imposable penalty of reclusion temporal
multiplied by P2,000.00.
3) Where the amount of fraud is P32,000.00 or over in which the imposable penalty is
reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua, bail shall be based on reclusion temporal maximum,
pursuant to Par. 2(a) of the 2000 Bail Bond Guide, multiplied by P2,000.00, plus an additional
of P2,000.00 for every P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00; Provided, however, that the total
amount of bail shall not exceed P60,000.00.
From the foregoing, if the amount of fraud is P122,000.00 or over, as in the case at bar, the amount of
bail is P60,000.00.

Cenzon v. Judge Abad Santos

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cenzon v. Judge Abad Santos

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cenzon v. Judge Abad Santos

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

29. Cenzon v. Judge Abad Santos; GR No.

You might also like