G.R. No. 138869 , August 29, 2002
David So, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, respondents.

FACTS

On August 21, 2001, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision which denied petitioner David So’s petition to restrain the execution of a Regional Trial Court judgment finding him guilty of violating B.P. Blg. 22 in Criminal Case Nos. 8345 and 8346. The trial court sentenced him to one year imprisonment in each case and to indemnify the offended party. Petitioner filed motions for new hearing and reconsideration, citing Administrative Circular Nos. 12-2000 and 13-2001 on the rule of preference for imposing a fine instead of imprisonment for B.P. Blg. 22 violations, which were denied. Subsequently, petitioner filed an “Urgent Manifestation of an Extraordinary Supervening Event” and a “Motion for Suspension of Execution and Modification of Judgment,” alleging he underwent serious triple heart bypass surgery on January 21, 2002, and that imprisonment would be a “sentence of death.” He sought retroactive application of Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 and, on humanitarian grounds, prayed for the imposition of a fine instead of imprisonment. The Office of the Solicitor General, in its comment, cited the cases of Vaca vs. Court of Appeals and Rosa Lim vs. People of the Philippines, where the Court imposed only a fine, and submitted the resolution to the Court’s discretion under Administrative Circular No. 13-2001.

ISSUE

Whether the final judgment of conviction imposing imprisonment may be modified to impose only a fine, based on a supervening event (petitioner’s serious heart condition) and in accordance with the policy on penalties for B.P. Blg. 22 violations under Administrative Circular Nos. 12-2000 and 13-2001.

RULING

Yes. The motion for suspension of execution and modification of judgment is GRANTED. The decision in Criminal Case Nos. 8345 and 8346 is MODIFIED by deleting the sentence of imprisonment and ordering petitioner David So to pay a fine equivalent to double the amount of the checks involved. The Court held that while the judgment had become final, the ministerial duty to execute it admits exceptions. Citing People vs. Gallo, the court has authority to suspend execution or modify a final judgment when imperative in the higher interest of justice or when supervening events warrant it. The Court considered the medical certificate showing petitioner’s weak and depressed condition post-coronary artery triple bypass, requiring rehabilitation, as a compelling reason for modification. This is in accord with the policy under Administrative Circular Nos. 12-2000 and 13-2001, which vest discretion in courts to determine if a fine alone best serves justice, as reiterated in Vaca vs. Court of Appeals and Rosa Lim vs. People of the Philippines.