2026 Criminal Law 1 - ART.1-11

2026 Criminal Law 1 - ART.1-11

Page 1 of 87 Page 1 of 87 General Principles ❖ Definition CRIMINAL LAW- is that branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment. CRIME- is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it. ELVIRA YU OH v. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Topic: Criminal Law — B.P. Blg. 22 / Retroactivity of Penal Laws / Jurisdiction FACTS Elvira Yu Oh purchased jewelry from Solid Gold International Traders, Inc. and later entered into a compromise agreement requiring her to issue 99 post-dated checks worth ₱50,000 each. She issued ten checks totaling ₱500,000, but the checks were dishonored because her bank account was already closed. She was charged with 10 counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) and was convicted by the RTC. The Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction. Yu Oh appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing, among other things, that R.A. No. 7691 should be applied retroactively because it expanded the jurisdiction of the MTC over certain criminal cases. She also argued that the prosecution failed to prove that she received the required notice of dishonor. ISSUE Whether R.A. No. 7691 should be applied retroactively under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, thereby transferring jurisdiction over Yu Oh's B.P. Blg. 22 cases from the RTC to the MTC. RULING — ALAC METHOD A — ANSWER NO. R.A. No. 7691 could not be applied retroactively to divest the RTC of jurisdiction that it had already acquired when the criminal cases were filed. L — LEGAL BASIS Under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, penal laws shall have retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, provided that the offender is not a habitual criminal. However, the Supreme Court held that R.A. No. 7691 is not a penal law because it does not define a crime or prescribe a penalty for a criminal offense. Rather, it is a law that expands and reallocates the jurisdiction of the lower courts. Jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at the time the action is commenced, and once a court validly acquires jurisdiction, a subsequent law transferring jurisdiction to another court does not divest the original court of jurisdiction. A — APPLICATION When Yu Oh's criminal cases were filed in October 1992, R.A. No. 7691 had not yet taken effect. Therefore, under the law existing at that time, the RTC had jurisdiction over the B.P. Blg. 22 cases. The subsequent enactment of R.A. No. 7691, which expanded the jurisdiction of the MTC, could not retroactively remove the jurisdiction that the RTC had already acquired. Consequently, Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code did not apply because R.A. No. 7691 was not a penal law. C — CONCLUSION The RTC properly retained jurisdiction over Yu Oh's criminal cases. R.A. No. 7691 could not be given retroactive application to transfer the cases to the MTC. IMPORTANT CRIMINAL LAW RULING Although the jurisdictional issue was decided against Yu Oh, the Supreme Court ultimately ACQUITTED her of all ten counts of B.P. Blg. 22 because the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she received the required notice of dishonor. The Court explained that notice of dishonor is important because the accused must be given the opportunity to pay the amount of the check or make arrangements for payment within five banking days after receiving notice. Without proof that Yu Oh actually received the notice, her criminal liability under B.P. Blg. 22 was not established beyond reasonable doubt. The Court also noted that the complainant's general manager already knew that Yu Oh did not have sufficient funds when the checks were issued. The Court held that there is no violation of B.P. 22 where the drawer had already informed the complainant of the insufficiency of funds.