Title
Supreme Court
Brodeth vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 197849
Decision Date
Nov 29, 2017
Petitioners charged under B.P. Blg. 22 for dishonored checks; Supreme Court dismissed case due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, citing insufficient evidence and hearsay.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 184203)

MeTC Findings and Judgment

The MeTC found the dishonor of the checks established by the “DAIF” endorsement and letters of dishonor received by petitioners. The court rejected the defense of payment for lack of documentary proof and ruled that petitioners, as drawers of the checks, knew of insufficient funds. It imposed fines of ₱200,000 per check, subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, civil indemnity of ₱283,600, and costs.

RTC Affirmation

On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila upheld the MeTC decision, finding:
• Jurisdiction lay with MeTC Manila because the affidavit‐complaint alleged issuance of the checks in Manila.
• Presentation of original checks and proof of notice of dishonor satisfied the prosecution’s burden on dishonor and knowledge.
• Corporate officers are criminally liable under B.P. Blg. 22 for issuing checks, even as guarantees.

CA Decision

The Court of Appeals denied the petition for review, reiterating that:
• Venue for B.P. Blg. 22 may be at the place of issuance or payment of the check.
• Allegation in the affidavit‐complaint that the checks were issued in Manila vested MeTC with jurisdiction.
• The purpose of issuance or corporate status of the drawer does not negate criminal liability.

Issues on Supreme Court Review

Petitioners contended that:

  1. The MeTC lacked territorial jurisdiction because the allegation of issuance in Manila was hearsay and unproven.
  2. The CA erred in applying a presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds without proof.
  3. The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Supreme Court Ruling on Territorial Jurisdiction

Focusing on the first issue, the Supreme Court held that territorial jurisdiction is an essential element that must be established by evidence, not mere allegation. It emphasized that in continuing or transitory crimes under B.P. Blg. 22, jurisdiction may be based on where the check was drawn, issued, delivered, presented, or dishonored—but such factual

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.