Cabral vs. Bracamonte

G.R. No. 233174
Cabral accused Bracamonte of estafa over a dishonored check issued in Makati. CA ruled Parañaque lacked jurisdiction; SC affirmed, dismissing the case.
estafa complaint venue

Case Digest (G.R. No. 233174)

Facts:

Ruel Francis M. Cabral v. Chris S. Bracamonte, G.R. No. 233174, January 23, 2019, the Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.

On September 15, 2009, Chris S. Bracamonte and Ruel Francis M. Cabral executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in Makati City for the sale of shares in Wellcross Freight Corporation and Aviver International Corporation. At the same time, Bracamonte gave Cabral a postdated BDO check for P12,677,950.15; when presented for payment the check was dishonored for "NON-SUFF. FUND." Cabral filed a criminal complaint for estafa in the RTC of Paranaque City and the prosecutor found probable cause, resulting in the filing of an Information charging estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 11-0664.

After arraignment and presentation of the prosecution's evidence, Bracamonte moved to quash the Information on the ground that venue was improperly laid in Paranaque City because the MOA, the issuance and delivery of the postdated check, and the dishonor of the check all occurred in Makati City. The RTC of Paranaque denied the motion to quash by Order dated February 26, 2016, reasoning that the complaint affidavit and the Information allege that deceit occurred in Paranaque City (at a warehouse where Cabral was allegedly persuaded to sell his shares), and that those allegations control jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeals, however, in a Decision dated March 27, 2017 (CA‑G.R. SP No. 146746), set aside the RTC Order and dismissed the Information for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that the elements of estafa (deceit and damage) occurred in Makati City where the MOA was signed, the check issued and delivered, and later dishonored; the CA noted the MOA also stipulated Makati as the venue. Cabral's Motion for Reconsideration was denied in a July 28, 2017 Reso...(Pro-only)

Issues:

  • May a private offended party (Cabral) prosecute a Rule 45 petition contesting the dismissal of a criminal case without the participation of the Office of the Solicitor General?
  • Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the Information for lack of jurisdiction because the essential elements of estafa were committed in Makati City ...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

  • (Pro-only)

Ratio:

  • (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

  • (Pro-only)
Unlock Full Case Digest