G.R. No. 144142 ; August 23, 2001
YOLANDA AGUIRRE, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Yolanda Aguirre was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City for three counts of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22). The informations alleged that on February 2, 4, and 9, 1993, she issued BPI Family Bank checks payable to Dinah Wei for amounts of P40,000.00, P50,000.00, and P225,703.10, respectively, in payment of an obligation. The checks were dishonored upon presentment for the reason “account closed,” and despite notice and demand, petitioner failed to make them good. At arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented Dinah Wei, who testified that the checks were issued in payment for rice purchased by petitioner. When presented for payment, the checks were dishonored, and petitioner failed to pay despite demands. The defense continuously moved for postponements of the hearings. Consequently, the trial court declared that petitioner had waived her right to present evidence and rendered a judgment of conviction, sentencing her to imprisonment and ordering her to pay the amounts of the checks plus interest and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Petitioner now assails the declaration that she waived her right to present evidence, claiming a denial of due process.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s declaration that petitioner waived, forfeited, and abandoned her right to adduce/present evidence, thereby allegedly depriving her of due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that there was no denial of due process. The records showed petitioner was given ample opportunity to present her evidence. The prosecution rested its case on April 20, 1995, but petitioner continuously requested postponements. It was only on February 9, 1996, after non-appearance, that the trial court declared her right to present evidence as waived. Petitioner did not file any motion for reconsideration of this order. The essential requirements of due process were met: there was a competent court, jurisdiction was acquired, the defendant was given an opportunity to be heard, and judgment was rendered after a lawful hearing. Petitioner had the opportunity but failed to take advantage of it. However, applying the doctrine in Vaca v. Court of Appeals and Lim v. People, and absent a showing of bad faith, the penalty of imprisonment was deleted. In lieu of imprisonment, petitioner was ordered to pay a fine for each violation: P40,000.00 (Crim. Case No. CBU-32174), P50,000.00 (Crim. Case No. CBU-32175), and P200,000.00 (Crim. Case No. CBU-32176), respectively. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed with this modification.