Case Digest (G.R. No. 233174)
Facts:
On September 15, 2009 in Makati City, Ruel Francis M. Cabral (petitioner) and Chris S. Bracamonte (respondent) executed a Memorandum of Agreement for the purchase by Cabral of Bracamonte’s shares in Wellcross Freight Corporation and Aviver International Corporation. Simultaneous with the MOA, Bracamonte delivered a postdated Bancó de Oro check for ₱12,677,950.15, which the drawee bank dishonored for “Non-Suff. Fund.” Cabral thereupon filed a complaint for estafa in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City. After finding probable cause, the prosecutor lodged an Information charging Bracamonte under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code. Bracamonte moved to quash for lack of venue, arguing that the issuance and dishonor of the check occurred in Makati City. The RTC denied the motion, holding that fraudulent acts inducing Cabral to sell his shares transpired in Parañaque City. On appeal, the Court of Appeals set aside the RTC Order and dismissed the Information, rulinCase Digest (G.R. No. 233174)
Facts:
- Parties and Transaction
- On September 15, 2009, petitioner Ruel Francis M. Cabral and respondent Chris S. Bracamonte executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in Makati City for the purchase by Bracamonte of Cabral’s shares in Wellcross Freight Corporation and Aviver International Corporation.
- Simultaneously with the MOA, Bracamonte issued a postdated check for ₱12,677,950.15 drawn on Banco de Oro, which was later dishonored for “NON-SUFF. FUND.”
- Pre-trial and Trial Court Proceedings
- Cabral filed a criminal complaint for estafa against Bracamonte before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City; an Information was subsequently lodged.
- Bracamonte moved to quash the Information, arguing that all essential acts (issuance, delivery, dishonor of the check) occurred in Makati City, hence venue was improper in Parañaque City.
- The RTC denied the Motion to Quash, holding that deceit occurred in Parañaque City where Cabral was allegedly persuaded to sell his shares in a warehouse, as alleged in the complaint affidavit.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) set aside the RTC Order and dismissed the Information for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the elements of estafa (deceit and damage) happened exclusively in Makati City.
- Cabral filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, contesting the CA’s dismissal on grounds of improper venue.
Issues:
- Whether Cabral had the legal standing to file the Petition for Review on Certiorari in a criminal case without the participation of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
- Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in holding that the RTC of Parañaque City was devoid of jurisdiction to try the estafa case because venue was improperly laid.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)