Case Summary (G.R. No. 87416)
Petitioner
Cecilio S. de Villa was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 145, with violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 for issuing a dishonored check.
Respondents
- People of the Philippines as the prosecuting entity
- Hon. Job B. Madayag, presiding judge in RTC Makati
- Roberto Z. Lorayez, payee of the check
- Court of Appeals, which dismissed the certiorari petition
Key Dates
- April 3, 1987: Check No. 3371 (US $2,500) antedated and issued
- October 5, 1987: Filing of Information in RTC Makati
- July 19, 1988 & September 6, 1988: RTC orders denying motion to dismiss
- February 1, 1989: Court of Appeals decision dismissing certiorari petition
- March 3, 1989: CA resolution denying reconsideration
- April 8, 1991: Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article VIII (Judicial Power and Jurisdiction)
- Revised Rules of Court, Rule 110, Sections 10 (Place of Commission) and 15(a) (Venue)
- Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law)
- Republic Act No. 529 (prohibiting foreign‐currency obligations in private contracts)
Facts of the Case
On April 3, 1987, petitioner drew and issued a US $2,500 check (equivalent to ₱50,000) from his foreign‐currency account to Roberto Z. Lorayez in Makati. The check was presented within 90 days and dishonored for “insufficient funds.” Despite notice, petitioner neither paid nor arranged for payment within five banking days.
Procedural History
- RTC Makati denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss—asserting jurisdiction under Rule 110 and applicability of B.P. 22 to foreign‐currency checks.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
- Petitioner filed certiorari in the Court of Appeals, arguing:
a. Lack of territorial jurisdiction over foreign accounts;
b. Violation of R.A. 529 renders dollar obligations void;
c. Therefore, no offense under B.P. 22. - The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and denied reconsideration.
- Petitioner sought relief before the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.
Issue
Whether the Regional Trial Court of Makati had jurisdiction over an offense under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 involving a check drawn on a foreign‐currency account.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
- Jurisdiction derives from the 1987 Constitution’s vesting of judicial power and is defined by statute at the commencement of the action.
- Rule 110, Section 10, requires only that some essential ingredient of the offense occur within the court’s territory. Section 15(a) mandates that criminal actions be tried where the offense or an essential element took place.
- The Information alleged commission in Makati. Under People v. Manzanilla and its progeny, such allegations fix venue and vest jurisdiction.
- Venue rules for B.P. 22 offenses locate the forum at the place of execution and delivery of the check. Here, delivery occurred in Makati.
- B.P. 22’s language and legislative history clearly extend its coverage to checks in any currency, i
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 87416)
Facts of the Case
- On April 3, 1987, petitioner Cecilio S. de Villa allegedly issued Depositors Trust Company Check No. 3371, antedated March 31, 1987, for U.S. $2,500 (equivalent to ₱50,000), to private respondent Roberto Z. Lorayes.
- The check was drawn against petitioner’s foreign‐currency (dollar) account, and he knew at issuance that his account lacked sufficient funds to cover it.
- The check was presented within 90 days and dishonored for “INSUFFICIENT FUNDS.”
- Despite notice, petitioner failed to pay or make arrangements for payment within five banking days after dishonor.
Procedural History
- October 5, 1987: Information filed in RTC Makati, Branch 145, for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law).
- After arraignment and partial testimony, petitioner moved to dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and alleged nullity under Republic Act No. 529.
- July 19, 1988: RTC denied motion to dismiss, ruling that B.P. Blg. 22 covers checks drawn on foreign‐currency accounts.
- September 6, 1988: RTC denied reconsideration.
- Petitioner filed certiorari in the Court of Appeals, arguing lack of jurisdiction over foreign‐currency checks and invalidity under RA 529.
- February 1, 1989: Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari.
- March 3, 1989: Court of Appeals denied reconsideration.
- November 13, 1989: Supreme Court granted due course to petitioner’s petition for review on certiorari.
Issue
- Whether the Regional Trial Court of Makati had jurisdiction to try petitioner for issuance of a bounced check drawn on a foreign‐currency account under B.P. Blg. 22.
Applicable Law and Jurisprudence
- Ba