Case Summary (G.R. No. 233174)
Procedural History
The prosecutor found probable cause and filed an Information in Parañaque RTC alleging estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code. After arraignment and partial presentation of evidence, Bracamonte moved to quash for improper venue, asserting all essential acts occurred in Makati City. The RTC denied the motion; the Court of Appeals (CA) set aside that denial and dismissed the Information. Cabral then filed a Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court.
RTC Denial of Motion to Quash
The RTC held that jurisdiction depended on the allegations in the complaint and Information. It relied on Cabral’s affidavit stating that Bracamonte induced him in a Parañaque warehouse to sell his shares. Because deceit—the first element of estafa—allegedly occurred in Parañaque, the RTC concluded it had territorial jurisdiction.
CA Decision on Venue
The CA emphasized that venue lies where the essential elements of estafa transpired. Execution of the MOA, delivery of the check, and its dishonor all took place in Makati City. Deceit occurred upon issuance of the worthless check; damage upon its dishonor. The warehouse meeting in Parañaque was irrelevant to venue under settled jurisprudence. Accordingly, the CA quashed the Information for lack of jurisdiction.
Petition to the Supreme Court
Cabral contended that a continuing offense like estafa permits prosecution where any ingredient—deceit or damage—occurred, including Parañaque. He urged that the complaint allegations fixed jurisdiction and that Bracamonte’s venue objection was waived by his participation in four years of proceedings.
OSG Representation Requirement
The Court noted that appeals of criminal dismissals must be undertaken by the State through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). Private complainants may appeal only civil aspects. Cabral lacked standing to assail the CA’s dismissal of the criminal charge, but the Court nonetheless resolved the merits.
Jurisdiction and Venue Principles
Under the 1987 Constitution and Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, a criminal action must be tried in the municipality where the offense or any essential ingredient occurred. Venue is an essential element of jurisdiction and must be proven, not merely alleged. A court without territorial jurisdiction must dismiss the case.
Elements of Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) RPC
- Issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of issuance;
- Insufficiency of funds at issuance;
- Defrauding the payee by deceit in issuing the check.
The criminally punishable act is the deceit in issuing a worthless check, not mere non-payment of debt.
Assessment of Venue Evidence
The only proven facts were that the MOA was executed in Makati City, the check was issued and delivered there, and the check was dishonored at the Makati drawee bank. The agreement itself stipulated Ma
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 233174)
Procedural History
- Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 challenging:
• CA Decision dated March 27, 2017 (CA-G.R. SP No. 146746)
• CA Resolution dated July 28, 2017 - CA set aside RTC Order of February 26, 2016 (RTC of Parañaque City) which denied Motion to Quash the Information for estafa.
- Complaint filed September 2009; Information lodged in RTC Parañaque as Criminal Case No. 11-0664.
Antecedent Facts
- September 15, 2009: Cabral and Bracamonte execute a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in Makati City for purchase of shares in Wellcross Freight Corporation and Aviver International Corporation.
- Simultaneously, Bracamonte issues postdated BDO Check No. 0249913 in favor of Cabral amounting to ₱12,677,950.15.
- Check presented for payment and dishonored for “NON-SUFF. FUND.”
- Cabral demands payment within three days; Bracamonte fails and refuses to pay.
Information and Charge
- Charged under Article 315(2)(d), Revised Penal Code, for estafa by means of deceit and false pretenses.
- Accusatory portion alleges:
• Negotiation and delivery of worthless check with representation of sufficient funds.
• Knowledge of insufficiency of funds at issuance.
• Dishonor and refusal to make good the check.
• Damage to Cabral in the amount of ₱12,677,950.15.
Motion to Quash and RTC Order
- Bracamonte’s Motion to Quash: Venue improperly laid in Parañaque City; all acts (issuance, delivery, dishonor) occurred in Makati City.
- Cabral’s Opposition: Complaint and Information allege fraudulent negotiations in Parañaque warehouse; jurisdiction vested in Parañaque RTC.
- RTC Order (Feb 26, 2016): Denied Motion to Quash, holding that:
• Deceit occurred in Parañaque during warehouse meeting at KM 17, West Service Road.
• Jurisdiction is determined by allegations in c