6 Yu Oh vs. CA

6. Yu Oh vs. Court of Appeals GR No. 125297 June 6, 2003 FACTS: Elvira Yu Yu Oh (petitioner) bought jewelry from Solid Gold International  Traders  Traders (private respondent) but failed to pay purhase prie! The ompany "led "led ivil ivil ompla omplaint ints s agains againstt her for spei" spei"  perfor performan mane e with with the #asig $egional Trial %ourt!  &oa'uin ovales III general manager of Solid Gold Gold and the petitioner entered entered into a ompromise ompromise agreement where petitioner was to issue ninety*nine post* dated he+s amounting to #,---- eah to be deposited every ., th and /-th of the month from Otober .00- to ovember .1 .002! 3alane of over #. million was to be paid in ash lump sum on ovember .1 .002 as well! #etione #etionerr issued 10 checks amounting to P50,000 each drawn against her aount in E'uitable 3an+ing %orporation! 4hen ovales deposited the he he+s +s with with 5ar East East 3an+ 3an+ and and Trust rust %omp %ompany any howe howeve ver r he he+s +s wer were dishonored as the account was already closed. Octo Octobe ber r 5, 1992: 1992: ovale ovales s "led "led .- separa separate te Infor Informat mation ions! s! These These were were ons onsol olid idat ated ed and and ra6e ra6ed d to 3ran 3ranh h 00 of the the #asig asig $T%! Deceber Deceber 22, 199!: $T% 199!: $T% rendered a deision fnding the accused guilty o ten counts o violation o B.P. Blg. 22, also known as the Bouncing Checks aw ! She She was sent senten ene ed d to one one year year of impr impris ison onme ment nt for for eah eah oun ountt and and indemni"ation of #,--! #etitioner appealed to the %ourt of 7ppeals but the %7 found it to be of no merit and a8rmed the $T%9s deision! #etitioners 7rgument: the failure of the appellate ourt to give retroative appliation to $!7! ;10. is a violation of 7rt! $!7! ;10. is a penal law in the sense that it a=ets the jurisdition of the ourt to ta+e ogni?ane of riminal ases> ta+en separately the o=ense overed by eah of the .- Informations in this ase falls within the e@lusive e@lusive original jurisdition of the Auniipal Trial Trial %ourt under Se! < of $!7! ;10.> and the %ourt of 7ppeals is guilty of judiial legislation in stating that after the arraignment of petitioner said ases ould no longer be transferred to the AT% without violating the rules on double  jeopardy beause that is is not so provided in $!7! $!7! ;10.! "SS#$S: "SS#$S: .! Bid the ourt err err in not granting retro retroativ ative e e=et to $!7! $!7! ;10. (whih (whih gave the Auniipal Trial Trial %ourts original jurisdition) in view of 7rt!