G.R. No. 103323 - Paulin vs. Gimenez

Case Summary (G.R. No. 103323)

Factual Background

Sometime in July 2003, respondent Richard Natividad, together with Milo Malong and Bing Nanquil, represented themselves as contractors under the name RB Custodio Construction and purchased construction materials from petitioner totaling PHP 500,054.00. The parties agreed to payment by postdated checks: twenty percent within seven days after first delivery and eighty percent within thirty-five days after last delivery. After deliveries, respondent paid PHP 20,000.00 cash and issued two postdated Metrobank checks for PHP 393,000.00 and PHP 87,054.00. Petitioner deposited those checks in her account at Equitable PCI Bank, Makati Branch, but the drawee bank dishonored them for reasons including “Account Closed.” Petitioner confronted respondent, received replacement postdated Metrobank checks, and those were likewise dishonored when presented for deposit at Equitable PCI Bank, Makati Branch. Petitioner made repeated demands for payment to no avail.

Instituting of Criminal Charges and Informations

On August 12, 2004, the City Prosecutor of Makati filed two Informations charging respondent and Milo Malong. The Informations alleged that on or about October 20, 2003, respondent issued Check No. 2960203217 in the amount of Php434,430.00 and Check No. 2960203218 in the amount of Php13,032.00 to AMASEA GENERAL MERCHANDIZE AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPLIES, knowing that he lacked sufficient funds or credit, and that the checks were subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason “Account Closed,” all in alleged violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.

Metropolitan Trial Court Decision

On September 3, 2008, the Metropolitan Trial Court rendered a Joint Decision finding Richard Natividad guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and imposed fines totaling Php213,032.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and ordered Natividad and Milo Malong jointly to pay the private complainant the face value of the two checks, Php447,462.00, with contractual interest and penalties as specified in the invoices. The MeTC acquitted Milo Malong for reasonable doubt on his criminal liability.

Regional Trial Court Proceedings

Respondent appealed to the Regional Trial Court and raised primarily lack of jurisdiction of the MeTC of Makati City on the ground that the checks were issued, drawn, and delivered in Subic, Pampanga, so that venue was improperly laid in Makati. He also alleged procedural irregularity in the absence of the public prosecutor during retaken testimony. On February 23, 2009, the RTC affirmed the MeTC decision, holding that violations of BP 22 are transitory offenses and that jurisdiction may be asserted where any material act occurred, including where the checks were presented and dishonored, which the RTC found to have occurred in Makati where petitioner maintained her bank account.

Court of Appeals Decision

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the prosecution on the ground that none of the essential elements of the offense occurred in Makati. The appellate court reasoned that the checks were issued, delivered, and the maker’s knowledge of dishonor occurred in Pampanga, that depositing the check is not an essential element of BP 22, and that knowledge of dishonor by the payee is not an element of the offense. The CA concluded that venue was improperly laid in Makati and dismissed the case without prejudice to refiling in the proper venue.

Petition to the Supreme Court and Issues

Petitioner sought relief by way of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, contending that the Court of Appeals gravely erred in finding that the MeTC of Makati City lacked jurisdiction despite proof that essential elements of the offense occurred therein, particularly because the checks were deposited and presented for encashment at Equitable PCI Bank, Makati Branch. The petition raised primarily the legal question whether the CA erred in its jurisdictional ruling.

Parties' Contentions

Petitioner argued that the MeTC of Makati properly exercised jurisdiction under prevailing jurisprudence recognizing venue in the place of deposit or presentation for encashment, citing Nieva, Jr. v. Court of Appeals and related cases, and asserted that all elements of BP 22 were proven. The Office of the Solicitor General, however, adopted the CA’s view and urged that the place of deposit is distinct from the place of dishonor and that jurisdiction properly lay in Pampanga where the checks were issued, delivered, and allegedly dishonored; the OSG relied on Rigor v. People. Respondent maintained lack of jurisdiction and also asserted procedural defects at trial relating to the absence of the public prosecutor at a hearing.

Legal Analysis on Jurisdiction

The Court reviewed the nature of violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 as transitory or continuing crimes and reiterated the rule that a person charged with a transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality where any of its essential and material acts were committed. The Court held that the place where a check is deposited or presented for encashment may confer jurisdiction upon the courts of that place. The Court explained that the cited authority in Rigor v. People did not establish a rule excluding the place of deposit as a proper venue and that the more directly applicable precedent, Nieva, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, supported recognition of jurisdiction where the check was deposited and presented for encashment.

Procedural and OSG Issues

The Court addressed procedural objections concerning the absence of the Solicitor General in prosecuting the appeal and the appropriate remedy for a dismissal by an appellate court. It explained that the OSG generally represents the State in criminal proceedings under Section 35(1) of the 1987 Administrative Code and that appeals by the prosecution ordinarily must be instituted by the Solicitor General. The Court nevertheless found exceptional circumstances warranting review by the Supreme Court despite the absence of intervention by the OSG because the OSG had taken a position contrary to the private offended party and because dismissal by the CA was not an acquittal but a jurisdictional dismissal, which did not invoke the bar of double jeopardy. The Court relied on established distinctions between dismissal and acquittal as articulated in People v. Salico and related authorities and treated the issue as a pure question of law suitable for review under Rule 45.

Supreme Court Ruling and Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the January 18, 2011 Decision and August 9, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the February 23, 2009 Decision and July 13, 2009 Order of the Regional Tri

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 103323)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Armilyn Morillo was the private complainant and petitioner who owned Amasea General Merchandize and Construction Supplies.
People of the Philippines and Richard Natividad were the respondents in the criminal proceedings.
Petitioner sought review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to reverse the Court of Appeals' Decision dated January 18, 2011 and Resolution dated August 9, 2011 in CA-G.R. CR No. 32723.
The Court of Appeals had reversed and set aside the Regional Trial Court's Decision dated February 23, 2009 and Order dated July 13, 2009, which had affirmed the Metropolitan Trial Court's Joint Decision dated September 3, 2008 in Criminal Case Nos. 337902-03.

Key Factual Allegations

In July 2003, respondent Natividad and companions, representing themselves as contractors under the name RB Custodio Construction, purchased construction materials from petitioner.
The parties agreed that twenty percent (20%) of the purchases would be paid within seven (7) days after first delivery and eighty percent (80%) within thirty-five (35) days after last delivery by postdated checks.
Petitioner delivered materials totaling P500,054.00 and received P20,000.00 in cash plus two postdated Metrobank checks in amounts of P393,000.00 and P87,054.00.
Upon presentment at Equitable PCI Bank, Makati Branch, the checks were dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason "Account Closed."
Respondent issued replacement postdated Metrobank checks which were also dishonored for the same reason, and petitioner personally delivered a demand letter to respondent.

Charges and Informations

The Assistant City Prosecutor recommended charges for Estafa, Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, and for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), which were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 337902-03.
The Informations alleged that respondent wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously issued checks knowing there were insufficient funds or credit, that the checks were dishonored within ninety (90) days for the reason "Account Closed," and that respondent failed to pay or arrange payment within five (5) banking days after notice.
The Informations identified specific checks, draws, amounts, and dates, including Check Nos. 2960203217 and 2960203218 with face amounts of Php434,430.00 and Php13,032.00 respectively.

Trial Court Decisions

The MeTC found respondent guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of BP 22, imposed fines aggregating Php213,032.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and ordered respondent and co-accused to jointly pay petitioner Php447,462.00 with interest and penalties as stipulated.
The RTC affirmed the MeTC decision on February 23, 2009 and held that violation of BP 22 is a continuing or transitory offense permitting venue where any material act occurred.
The Court of Appeals reversed on January 18, 2011 and dismissed the cases without prejudice on the ground that none of the essential elements of BP 22 transpired in Makati City and that the elements occurred in Pampanga.

Issues Presented

Whether the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City had territorial jurisdiction to try the BP 22 offenses charged in Criminal Case Nos. 337902-03.
Whether petitioner, a private offended party, could prosecute a petition for review under Rule 45 without intervention