SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS | Go v. Dimagiba, G.R. No. 151876, 21 June 2005

Go v. Dimagiba, 

G.R. No. 151876, 21 June 2005


FACTS Respondent Fernando L. Dimagiba issued thirteen checks to petitioner Susan Go, but these checks were dishonored by the drawee bank due to "account closed." Dimagiba was subsequently prosecuted for thirteen counts of violation of BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) in Baguio City. After a joint trial, Dimagiba was convicted in all thirteen cases. Dimagiba filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that a previous ruling and a Supreme Court Administrative Circular prescribed a fine instead of imprisonment for BP 22 convictions. He argued that these rulings should be applied retroactively, challenging the imposed penalty as excessive. However, Dimagiba had previously sought the modification of his sentence in a Motion for Reconsideration and a Motion for the Partial Quashal of the Writ of Execution, both of which were denied by the MTCC. Whether the Petition for habeas corpus was validly granted.


HELD No. The writ may not be availed of when the person in custody is under a judicial process or by virtue of a valid judgment. However, as a post-conviction remedy, it may be allowed when, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding, any of the following exceptional circumstances is attendant: (1) there has been a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person; (2) the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or (3) the imposed penalty has been excessive, thus voiding the sentence as to such excess.


Here, the Court found that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was not validly granted. The exceptional circumstances necessary for the grant of the writ were not present. Dimagiba's claim of the retroactive application of previous rulings and administrative circulars did not fall under the exceptional circumstances. Moreover, Dimagiba had already sought modification of his sentence through other legal motions, which were denied by the MTCC.







Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147