3ilepublic of tbe flbilippines

$>Upreme QCourt
:fflanila

FIRST DIVISION

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution
dated February 22, 2023 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 262425 (Vanessa Curi/an Pastor v. People of the

Philippines). - At the outset, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Extension
of Time filed by petitioner Vanessa Curilan Pastor (petitioner), praying for an
extension of 30 days from the expiration of the reglementary period within
which to file her petition for review on certiorari.

After a judicious review of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the
present Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 (Petition) and AFFIRM WITH
MODIFICATION the Decision2 dated 22 April 2022 and the Resolution3
dated 03 August 2022 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. CR No.
44547.

Preliminarily, the Petition failed to comply with several procedural

requirements. The Verification4 does not state the additional matters required
under Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, as amended. 5 Also, the
Verification and Certification against forum shopping do not contain the
affiant's competent evidence of identity. The verification and certification
further appear to have been electronically signed. It is well-settled that ajurat
6
contemplates personal appearance and physical signing by the affiant.

1 Rollo, pp. 9-22.

Id. at 24-32. Penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi and concurred in by Associate
Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Roberto P. Quiroz.
3 Id. at 34-36. Penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi and concurred in by Associate
Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Roberto P. Quiroz.
4
- Id. at 20.
5 The particular statements not included are: (i) that the pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary
delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and (ii) that the factual allegations therein have
evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likewise have evidentiary support after a
reasonable opportunity for discovery.
6 See Dela Cruz-Silfano v. Pangan, 592 Phil. 219 (2008).

- over- four (4) pages ...

263
Resolution 2 G.R. No. 262425
February 22, 2023

With the foregoing, the Verification and Certification are deemed

defective, 7 and the Petition should be treated as unsigned. 8 It is the signature
that supplies a pleading with legal effect and elevates its status from a mere
scrap of paper to that of a court document.9 Hence, being unsigned, the
Petition is a mere scrap of paper that has no legal effect. Moreover, a
defective certification against forum shopping is not curable by mere
amendment. 10

Further, the Petition refers to transcripts of stenographic notes which

were not attached to the pleading. 11 Sec. 4 (d), Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
states that the petition must be accompanied by "such material portions of the
record as would support the petition." Failure to comply with any of the
requirements under Rule 45 renders the Petition dismissible. 12

Even if the Court were to ignore these lapses, the Petition must still be
dismissed for raising issues that are purely factual, i.e., the nature of the
relationship between complainant and petitioner and the specifics of their
agreement. These questions are beyond the ambit of a Rule 45 petition, the
Court not being a trier of facts. As a rule, when the trial court's findings have
been affirmed by the appellate court, such findings are generally conclusive
and binding upon this Court. 13 While there are exceptions to this rule, none
was invoked, much less substantiated. As such, there is no reason to disturb
the uniform factual findings of the Metropolitan Trial Court, the Regional
Trial Court, and the CA.

In any event, as the CA correctly ruled, all the elements 14 of a Batas

Pambansa Bilang 22 violation are present in this case: (i) petitioner issued the
subject check in order to pay for her loan from complainant; (ii) the check
was dishonored upon presentment for having been issued against a closed
account; and (iii) petitioner knew, at the time of issuance of the check, that
she did not have sufficient funds to cover the check, as shown by her failure
to settle its amount within five banking days from notice of dishonor and
personal service of the demand letter.

7 BF Citiland Corp. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 224912, I 6 October 2019.
8 RULES OF COURT, Rule 7, Sec. 4.
9 See Spouses Mariano v. Abrajano, A.C. No. 12690, 26 Apri l 2021.
10 See Rules of Court, Rule 7, Sec. 5.
11 Rollo, pp. 13-14.
12 RULES OF COURT, Ru le 45, Secs. 1 and 4 (e) in relation to Sec. 5.
13 Peoplev. Lalongisip, 635 Phil. 163 , 173 (2010).
14 To be he ld liable for a violation of B.P. 22, the following elements must be present: (a) the making,
drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (b) the subsequent dishonor of the
check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the
drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment; and (c) the knowledge of the maker,
drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he or she does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment (See San Mateo v. People, 705
Phil. 630, 636-637 [2013]).

- over -
263
Resolution 3 G.R. No. 262425
February 22, 2023

As to the penalty, the P200,000.00 fine with subsidiary imprisomnent in

case of insolvency is in accord with the law. 15 Moreover, the imposition of
legal interest on the value of the check from default or extrajudicial demand
on 03 October 2011 is in conformity with Nacar v. Gallery Frames (Nacar) .16
Nonetheless, the rate of legal interest must be modified to be consistent with
prevailing jurisprudence, thus: (i) twelve percent (12%) per annum from 03
October 2011 to 30 June 2013; and (ii) six percent (6%) per annum from 01
July 2013 until finality of this Resolution. 17 Lastly, following Nacar, the total
monetary award shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per
annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated 22 April

2022 and the Resolution dated 3 August 2022 of the Court of Appeals in CA
G.R. CR No. 44547 are AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Petitioner
Vanessa Curilan Pastor is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. She is sentenced to pay a fine of Two
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) with subsidiary imprisomnent in
case of insolvency. She is likewise ordered to pay the face value of the subject
check in the amount of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00), with legal
interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum from 03 October 2011 to 30 June
2013, and six percent (6%) per annum from 01 July 2013 until the finality of
this Resolution. The total amount shall further earn interest at six percent
(6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until full payment.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

Divisio

by:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULO

Deputy Division Clerk of Court
263
MAR 2 1 2023

15 See Batas Parnbansa Big . 22, Sec. 1; REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 39; Supreme Court Administrative
C ircular No. 13-01.
16 716 Phil. 267, 2 81-283 (201 3).
17 Id.

- over -
Resolution 4 G.R. No. 262425
February 22, 2023

Atty. Mario Bernardo S. Cerro Court of Appeals (x)

Counsel for Petitioner Manila
6007 Kalayaan Avenue, Olympia Village (CA-G.R. CR No. 44547)
1207 Makati City
The Solicitor General
134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village
1229 Makati City

The Hon. Presiding Judge

Regional Trial Court, Branch 22
1000 Manila
(Crim. Case No. 483751-CR-R00-00)

Public Information Office (x)

Library Services (x)
Supreme Court
(For uploading pursuant to A.M.
No. 12-7-1-SC)

Philippine Judicial Academy (x)

Supreme Court

Judgment Division (x)

Supreme Court

263

UR