Case Digest (G.R. No. 103323)
Facts:
Armilyn Morillo v. People of the Philippines and Richard Natividad, G.R. No. 198270, December 09, 2015, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.In July 2003, Armilyn Morillo (petitioner), owner of Amasea General Merchandize and Construction Supplies, sold construction materials to respondent Richard Natividad and his partners for P500,054.00 under an agreement calling for 20% payment within seven days and the remaining 80% within thirty-five days by postdated checks. After deliveries, Natividad paid P20,000 cash and issued two postdated Metrobank checks (numbers and amounts alleged in the Informations). When petitioner deposited those checks at Equitable PCI Bank, Makati Branch, they were dishonored by the drawee bank for reason “Account Closed.” Petitioner demanded payment, respondent allegedly issued replacement checks which were also dishonored. Petitioner made several demands to no avail and filed complaints with the Makati City Prosecutor.
On August 12, 2004, Informations were filed in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Makati City charging Natividad (and Milo Malong) with violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) for the two dishonored checks; the Informations alleged the checks were presented within 90 days and were dishonored and that notice of dishonor was given but payment or arrangements were not made within five banking days.
On September 3, 2008, the MeTC convicted Natividad of violating BP 22 and ordered fines and civil indemnity; Malong was acquitted. On appeal to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati City, the RTC on February 23, 2009 affirmed the MeTC, holding that BP 22 is a continuing/transitory offense and that acts material to the offense (including presentation and dishonor processes) took place in Makati City where petitioner maintained her deposit account.
Natividad appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In a January 18, 2011 Decision, the CA reversed and dismissed the case on venue grounds, holding that all essential elements occurred in Pampanga (where the checks were issued, delivered and where knowledge of dishonor was manifested) and that neither the act of depositing the checks in Makati nor learning of dishonor at petitioner’s bank vested jurisdiction in Makati. The OSG sided with the CA; petitioner contested the CA ruling and filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.
Before the Court, petitioner argued the CA misapplied precedents (relying on Nieva, Jr. v. Court of Appeals and Yalong v. People) and that the MeTC of Makati properly had jurisdiction because the checks were deposited/presented for encashment at Equitable PCI Bank, Makati Branch and dishonor was communicated in Makati. The OSG and respondent argued venue was improper in Makati, invoking Rigor v. People. The Supreme Court took up petitioner’s Rule 45 petition and, after considering procedural objections (including the OSG’s absence and the double jeopardy claim...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May a private offended party properly invoke Rule 45 to question the Court of Appeals’ dismissal where the Office of the Solicitor General did not represent the State and the appellate dismissal was not an acquittal?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City lacked jurisdiction over the BP 22 cases because the essential elements of the offense occurr...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)