Case Digest: FULE vs. CA, G.R. No. 79094

FULE vs. CA, G.R. No. 79094, June 22, 1988

Subject: Statutory Construction

FACTS

This is a Petition for Review on certiorari of the Decision of respondent Appellate Court, which affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Lucena City, Branch LIV, convicting petitioner (the accused-appellant) of Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (The Bouncing Checks Law) on the basis of the Stipulation of Facts entered into between the prosecution and the defense during the pre-trial conference in the Trial Court.

At the hearing of August 23, 1985, only the prosecution presented its evidence.  At the subsequent hearing on September 17, 1985, petitioner-appellant waived the right to present evidence and, in lieu thereof, submitted a Memorandum confirming the Stipulation of Facts.

The Trial Court convicted petitioner-appellant. On appeal, respondent Appellate Court upheld the Stipulation of Facts and affirmed the judgment of conviction. Hence, this recourse.

ISSUE

Whether or not CA erred in the affirming RTC’s decision convicting the petitioner of the offense charged, despite the cold fact that the basis of the conviction was based solely on the stipulation of facts made during the pre-trial on August 8, 1985, which was not signed by the petitioner, nor by his counsel.

RULING

YES, CA erred in affirming RTC’s decision.

Under the rule of statutory construction, negative words and phrases are to be regarded as mandatory while those in the affirmative are merely directory (McGee vs. Republic, 94 Phil. 820 [1954]).

In this case, Rule 118, Section 4 provides that “Pre-trial agreements must be signed. — No agreement or admission made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be used in evidence against the accused unless reduced to writing and signed by him and his counsel.” The use of the term "shall" further emphasize its mandatory character and means that it is imperative, operating to impose a duty which may be enforced. The conclusion is inevitable, therefore, that the omission of the signature of the accused and his counsel, as mandatorily required by the Rules, renders the Stipulation of Facts inadmissible in evidence.