11. People v Gorospe the checks he had issued were dishonored.
The People maintain, on the
GR Nos. L-74053-54 other hand, that jurisdiction is properly vested in the Regional Trial Court
January 20, 1988 of Pampanga.
By: HAPPY A person charged with a transitory crime may be validly tried in any
Topic: Sec. 16 municipality or province where the offense was in part committed. In
Petitioners: People of the Philippines and San Miguel Corporation transitory or continuing offenses in which some acts material and
Respondents: Nathaniel M. Grospe, Presiding Judge, Branch 44, Regional Trial essential to the crime and requisite to its consummation occur in one
Court of Pampanga and Manuel Parulan province and some in another, the Court of either province has
Ponente: Melencio-Herrera, J. jurisdiction to try the case, it being understood that the first Court taking
cognizance of the Case will exclude the others. However, if all the acts
DOCTRINE: The delivery of the instrument is the final act essential to its
material and essential to the crime and requisite of its consummation
consummation as an obligation.
occurred in one municipality or territory, the Court of that municipality or
territory has the sole jurisdiction to try the case.
The rule is that the issuance as well as the delivery of the check must be to a person
who takes it as a holder, which means "the payee or indorsee of a bill or note, who Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check, may be a transitory or
is in possession of it, or the bearer, thereof" continuing offense. Its basic elements of deceit and damage may arise
independently in separate places. In this case, deceit took place in San
FACTS: Fernando, Pampanga, while the damage was inflicted in Bulacan where
the check was dishonored by the drawee bank in that place. Jurisdiction
Respondent-Accused Manuel Parulan is an authorized wholsesale dealer
may, therefore, be entertained by either the Bulacan Court or the
of petitioner SMC in Bulacan
Pampanga Court.
He was charged with violation of the Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22) for
For while the subject check was issued in Guiguinto, Bulacan, it was not
having issued a check for P86,071.20 in favor of SMC but which was
completely drawn thereat, but in San Fernando, Pampanga, where it was
dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds and, in spite
uttered and delivered. What is of decisive importance is the delivery
of repeated demands, for having failed and refused to make good said
thereof. The delivery of the instrument is the final act essential to its
check to the damage and prejudice of SMC.
consummation as an obligation. For although the check was received by
In another criminal case, Parulan was charged with Estafa under Art. 315
the SMC Sales Supervisor at Guiguinto, Bulacan, that was not the delivery
par. 2(d) of the RPC for having made out a check in the sum of P11,918.80
in contemplation of law to the payee, SMC. Said supervisor was not the
in favor of SMC in payment of beer he had purchased, but which check
person who could take the check as a holder, that is, as a payee or
was refused payment for “insufficient funds” and, in spite of repeated
indorsee thereof, with the intent to transfer title thereto. The rule is that
demands, for having failed and refused to redeem said check to the
the issuance as well as the delivery of the check must be to a person who
damage and prejudice of SMC.
takes it as a holder, which means "the payee or indorsee of a bill or note,
Respondent judge dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction
who is in possession of it, or the bearer, thereof" (Sec. 190, Negotiable
Hence, this petition for certiorari
Instruments Law, cited in People vs. Yabut, supra.)
Thus, said representative had to forward the check to the SMC Regional
ISSUE: W/N respondent judge has jurisdiction (W/N venue was proper)
Office in San Fernando, Pampanga, which was delivered to the Finance
Officer thereat who, in turn, deposited it at the SMC depository bank in
RULING: YES.
San Fernando, Pampanga. The element of deceit, therefore, took place in
The principal ground relied upon by Respondent Judge in dismissing the
San Fernando, Pampanga, where the rubber check was legally issued and
criminal cases is that deceit and damage, the two essential elements that
delivered so that jurisdiction could properly be laid upon the Court in that
make up the offenses involving dishonored checks, did not occur within
locality.
the territorial jurisdiction of his Court in Pampanga, but rather in Bulacan
where false assurances were given by Respondent- accused and where In respect of the Bouncing Checks Case, the offense also appears to be
continuing in nature. It is true that the offense is committed by the very
fact of its performance; and that the Bouncing Checks Law penalizes not
only the fact of dishonor of a check but also the act of making or drawing
and issuance of a bouncing check. The case, therefore, could have been
filed also in Bulacan. As held in Que vs. People of the Philippines, "the
determinative factor (in determining venue) is the place of the issuance
of the check". However, it is likewise true that knowledge on the part of
the maker or drawer of the check of the insufficiency of his funds, which
is an essential ingredient of the offense is by itself a continuing
eventuality, whether the accused be within one territory or another.
Accordingly, jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense also lies in the
Regional Trial Court of Pampanga.
