G.R. No. 100776 October 28, 1993
ALBINO S. CO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Albino S. Co delivered a postdated check for P361,528.00 drawn against the Associated Citizens’ Bank on September 1, 1983, in connection with an agreement to salvage a sunken vessel and as payment for his share of the expenses. The check, postdated November 30, 1983, was deposited on January 3, 1984, and dishonored on January 5, 1984, with the reason “CLOSED ACCOUNT.” A criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 was filed against Co. He was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, sentenced to sixty days imprisonment, and ordered to indemnify the salvage company. The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Co appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that at the time of the check’s issuance on September 1, 1983, the prevailing rule, based on Ministry of Justice Circular No. 4 dated December 15, 1981, was that a check issued as a guarantee for an obligation was not criminally liable under B.P. Blg. 22. This circular was reversed by Ministry Circular No. 12 on August 8, 1984, and the judicial doctrine that such checks are covered by B.P. Blg. 22 was established in Que v. People on September 21, 1987. Co contended that applying the later doctrine to him constituted an ex post facto application of the law.

ISSUE

Whether the judicial doctrine established in Que v. People (that a check issued as a guarantee is covered by B.P. Blg. 22) can be applied retroactively to convict Albino S. Co for an act committed on September 1, 1983, when a contrary administrative circular was in force at that time.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. The principle of prospectivity applies to judicial decisions. While judicial decisions form part of the law of the land, they are subject to the rule that laws shall have no retroactive effect unless provided otherwise. At the time Co issued the check on September 1, 1983, the prevailing interpretation by the Ministry of Justice (Circular No. 4) was that issuing a bouncing check as a guarantee was not a violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Co relied on this official interpretation. The subsequent judicial reversal of this doctrine in the 1987 Que case should only be applied prospectively. Applying the new doctrine retroactively to Co would be unjust, as it would punish an act that was not considered a crime under the officially declared interpretation at the time of its commission. The Court emphasized that when a new doctrine overrules an old one, the new view should be applied prospectively, especially in criminal law, so that punishment is reasonably foreseen. Therefore, Co’s conviction was reversed.