Haystack: People vs. Grospe (GRs L-74053-54, 20 January 1988)

People vs. Grospe
[G.R. Nos. L-74053-54. January 20, 1988.]
Second Division, Melencio-Herrera (J): 4 concurring

Facts: Manuel Parulan is an authorized wholesale dealer of San Miguel Corporation (SMC) in Bulacan. On 13 June 1983, parulan issued Planters Development Bank (Santa Maria, Bulacan Branch) [PDB] Check 19040865 in the sum of P86,071.20 in favor of SMC, which was received by the SMC Supervisor at Guiguinto, Bulacan. The check was forwarded to the SMC Regional Office at San Fernando, Pampanga, where it was delivered to and received by the SMC Finance Officer, who then deposited the check with the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), San Fernando Branch, which is the SMC depository bank. On 8 July 1983, the SMC depository bank received a notice of dishonor of the said check for "insufficiency of funds" from the PDB, the drawee bank in Santa Maria, Bulacan. On 18 June 1983, Parulan likewise issued PDB Check 19040872 in the amount of P11,918.80 in favor of SMC, which was received also by the SMC Supervisor at Guiguinto, Bulacan, as direct payment for the spot sale of beer. That check was similarly forwarded by the SMC Supervisor to the SMC Regional Office in San Fernando, Pampanga, where it was delivered to the Finance Officer thereat and who, in turn, deposited the check with the SMC depository bank in San Fernando, Pampanga. On 8 July 1983, the SMC depository bank received a notice of dishonor for "insufficiency of funds" from the drawee bank, the PDB, in Santa Maria, Bulacan.

In Criminal Case 2800 of the RTC Pampanga, he was charged with Violation of the Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22) for having issued a check on 13 June 1983 for P86,071.20 in favor of SMC ([PDB] Check 19040865) but which was dishonored for having been drawn against "insufficient funds" and, in spite of repeated demands, for having failed and refused to make good said check to the damage and prejudice of SMC. In Criminal Case 2813 of the same Court, Parulan was charged with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code for having made out a check on 18 June 1983 in the sum of P11,918.80 in favor of SMC (PDB Check 19040872) in payment of beer he had purchased, but which check was refused payment for "insufficient funds" and, in spite of repeated demands, for having failed and refused to redeem said check to the damage and prejudice of SMC. The two cases were tried jointly, the witnesses for both prosecution and defense being the same for the two suits. The trial court, through the Hon Nathaniel M. Grospe (Presiding Judge, Branch 44, RTC Pampanga) rendered judgment dismissing the cases for lack of jurisdiction, and ordered the cancellation of the bail bond posted by the accused. Hence, the special civil action for certiorari.

The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the respondent Judge of 17 February 1986, and ordered the Judge to reassume jurisdiction over Criminal Cases 2800 and 2813 of his Court and to render judgment of either conviction or acquittal in accordance with the evidence already adduced during the joint trial of said two cases.

1. Elements of estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check
In the crime of Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check, deceit and damage are essential elements of the offense (U.S. vs. Rivera, 23 Phil. 383-390) and have to be established with satisfactory proof to warrant conviction.

2. Elements of BP 22; Deceit and damage not essential
For Violation of the Bouncing Checks Law, the elements of deceit and damage are not essential nor required. An essential element of that offense is knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of the check of the insufficiency of his funds (Lozano vs. Hon. Martinez, Nos. L-63419, etc., December 18, 1986; 146 SCRA 323; Dingle vs. IAC, G.R. No. 75243, March 16, 1987, 148 SCRA 595). The Anti-Bouncing Checks Law makes the mere act of issuing a worthless check a special offense punishable thereunder (Cruz vs. IAC, No. L-66327, May 28, 1984, 129 SCRA 490. Malice and intent in issuing the worthless check are immaterial, the offense being malum prohibitum (Que vs. People of the Philippines, et. al., G.R. Nos. 75217-18, September 21, 1987). The gravamen of the offense is the issuance of a check, not the non-payment of an obligation (Lozano vs. Hon. Martinez, supra).

3. Section 14 (a) of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court; Transitory crimes
Section 14 (a) of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court (Place where action is to be instituted), which has been carried over in Section 15(a) of Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically provides “In all criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province wherein the offense was committed or any one of the essential ingredients thereof took place." In other words, a person charged with a transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or province where the offense was in part committed. In transitory or continuing offenses in which some acts material and essential to the crime and requisite to its consummation occur in one province and some in another, the Court of either province has jurisdiction to try the case, it being understood that the first Court taking cognizance of the Case will exclude the others (Tuzon vs. Cruz. No. L-27410, August 28, 1975, 66 SCRA 235). However, if all the acts material and essential to the crime and requisite of its consummation occurred in one municipality or territory, the Court of that municipality or territory has the sole jurisdiction to try the case (People vs. Yabut, L-42902, April 29, 1977, 76 SCRA 624).

4. Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check a transitory or continuing offense
Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check, may be a transitory or continuing offense. Its basic elements of deceit and damage may arise independently in separate places (People vs. Yabut, supra). In the present case, deceit took place in San Fernando, Pampanga, while the damage was inflicted in Bulacan where the check was dishonored by the drawee bank in that place (See People vs. Yabut, supra). Jurisdiction may, therefore, be entertained by either the Bulacan Court or the Pampanga Court.

5. Delivery of the instrument is the final act essential to its consummation as an obligation; Issuance and delivery of check to holder (payee or indorsee) or the bearer
For while the subject check was issued in Guiguinto, Bulacan, it was not completely drawn thereat, but in San Fernando, Pampanga, where it was uttered and delivered; the place of business and residence of the payee. The place where the bills were written, signed or dated does not necessarily fix or determine the place where they were executed. What is of decisive importance is the delivery thereof. The delivery of the instrument is the final act essential to its consummation as an obligation. (People vs. Larue, 83 P. 2d 725, cited in People vs. Yabut, supra). An undelivered bill or note is inoperative. Until delivery, the contract is revocable (Ogden, Negotiable Instruments, 5th ed., at 107). And the issuance as well as the delivery of the check must be to a person who takes it as a holder, which means "(t)he payee or indorsee of a bill or note, who is in possession of it, or the bearer thereof" (Sec. 190, Negotiable Instruments Law). Delivery of the check signifies transfer of possession, whether actual or constructive, from one person to another with intent to transfer title thereto (Bailey, Brady on Bank Checks, 3rd ed. at 57-59; Sec. 190, Negotiable Instruments Law).

6. Deceit took place in Pampanga
For although the check was received by the SMC Sales Supervisor at Guiguinto, Bulacan, that was not the delivery in contemplation of law to the payee, SMC. Said supervisor was not the person who could take the check as a holder, that is, as a payee or indorsee thereof, with the intent to transfer title thereto. Thus, said representative had to forward the check to the SMC Regional Office in San Fernando, Pampanga, which was delivered to the Finance Officer thereat who, in turn, deposited it at the SMC depository bank in San Fernando, Pampanga. The element of deceit, therefore, took place in San Fernando, Pampanga, where the rubber check was legally issued and delivered so that jurisdiction could properly be laid upon the Court in that locality.

7. Bouncing Check offense continuing in nature
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 (Colmenares vs. Villar, No. L-27126, May 29, 1970, 33 SCRA 186); 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 (People vs. Hon. Veridiano, II, No. L-62243, 132 SCRA 523).

8. Que vs. People; Issuance of check determinative but knowledge of insufficiency of funds a continuing eventuality
As held in Que vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 75217-18, September 11, 1987 "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 (People vs. Hon. Manzanilla, G.R. Nos. 66003-04, December 11, 1987). Accordingly, jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense also lies in the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga.

9. Jurisdiction or venue determined by the allegation in the information
As pointed out in the Manzanilla case, jurisdiction or venue is determined by the allegations in the Information, which are controlling (Arches vs. Bellosillo, 81 Phil. 190, 193, cited in Tuzon vs. Cruz, No. L-27410, August 28, 1975, 66 SCRA 235). The Information filed in the present case specifically alleges that the crime was committed in San Fernando, Pampanga, and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of the Court below.

10. Questions covering jurisdiction may be averred in a petition for certiorari
The dismissal of the subject criminal cases by Respondent Judge, predicated on his lack of jurisdiction, is correctible by Certiorari. The error committed is one of jurisdiction and not an error of judgment on the merits. Well-settled is the rule that questions covering jurisdictional matters may be averred in a petition for certiorari, inclusive of matters of grave abuse of discretion, which are equivalent to lack of jurisdiction (City of Davao vs. Dept. of Labor, No. L-19488, January 30, 1965, 13 SCRA 111, 115). An error of jurisdiction renders whatever order of the Trial Court null and void.

11. Petition for certiorari does not place accused in double jeopardy; Dismissal of criminal case not based on merits not res judicata
The present petition for Certiorari seeking to set aside the void Decision of Respondent Judge does not place the accused in double jeopardy for the same offense. The questioned judgment was not an adjudication on the merits. It was a dismissal upon the Judge's erroneous conclusion that his Court had no "territorial jurisdiction" over the cases. Where an order dismissing a criminal case is not a decision on the merits, it cannot bar as res judicata a subsequent case based on the same offense (People vs. Bellosillo, No. L-18512, December 27, 1963, 9 SCRA 835, 837).

12. Dismissal null and void
The dismissal being null and void the proceedings before the Trial Court may not be said to have been lawfully terminated. There is therefore, no second proceeding which would subject the accused to double jeopardy. The Judge had jurisdiction to try and decide the subject criminal case, venue having been properly laid.

	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.