Case Summary (G.R. No. 163788)
Informations, Prosecution Theory, and Lower Court Findings
Two Informations were filed charging violation of BP 22 (bouncing checks) for issuance of checks knowing there were insufficient funds or credit, and for failure to pay within five banking days after notice of dishonor. The MeTC (Makati) found respondent guilty beyond reasonable doubt, imposed fines and subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and ordered payment of face values with interest and penalties. Co-accused Malong was acquitted for reasonable doubt.
RTC Decision on Appeal
Respondent appealed to the RTC, arguing lack of jurisdiction by MeTC Makati because the checks were issued and delivered in Pampanga and because the public prosecutor did not appear at a hearing (alleged delegation impropriety). The RTC affirmed the MeTC, holding that BP 22 is a continuing/transitory offense and that venue may be proper where any material act occurred; it emphasized that the deposit and dishonor processes occurred in Makati (collecting bank and payee’s account), thereby supporting Makati jurisdiction. The RTC also rejected the late procedural challenge regarding the public prosecutor’s presence.
Court of Appeals Decision
The CA reversed and dismissed the case without prejudice, holding the proper venue was in Pampanga. It reasoned the essential elements—issuance, knowledge of dishonor by maker, and actual dishonor by the drawee—occurred in Pampanga: the checks were issued and delivered at petitioner’s office in Pampanga, the maker’s knowledge arose there when petitioner notified respondent in Pampanga, and the drawee’s dishonor took place at Metrobank Pampanga. The CA rejected the proposition that the place of deposit (Makati) conferred jurisdiction.
Petitioner’s Arguments to the Supreme Court
Petitioner argued the MeTC Makati properly exercised jurisdiction because the checks were deposited and presented for encashment at Equitable PCI Bank, Makati Branch, invoking precedents (Nieva, Jr. v. Court of Appeals) that permit venue where deposit/presentation and dishonor notification to the payee occurred. Petitioner also maintained that all BP 22 elements were proven: issuance for value, presentation within 90 days, dishonor for “Account Closed,” and notice/demand that respondent received.
Respondent’s and OSG’s Arguments
The OSG and respondent contended that the place of deposit is not an essential element and relied on Rigor v. People to argue that venue should be where the check was issued, delivered, and dishonored (Pampanga), not where it was deposited. The OSG further noted general rules about OSG representation and limitations on prosecutorial appeals and interventions in criminal matters.
Legal Issue Presented
Whether the MeTC of Makati had territorial jurisdiction to try BP 22 offenses where the post-dated checks were drawn and delivered in Pampanga but were deposited by the payee and presented for collection, and where notice of dishonor was received, at a bank in Makati.
Governing Legal Principles on Venue in BP 22 Cases
The Court reaffirmed that BP 22 offenses are transitory or continuing crimes: material acts constitutive of the offense (drawing, issuing, delivering, presenting for encashment/deposit, and dishonor) may occur in different places. Under settled jurisprudence, a person charged with such a transitory offense may be validly tried in any municipality or territory where any of the essential and material acts occurred. The first court to take cognizance of the case excludes the others.
Precedents Considered and Their Application
The Court analyzed Rigor v. People, Nieva, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, and Yalong v. People. It distinguished Rigor: that case turned on proof that the check was issued and delivered in San Juan, thereby vesting jurisdiction there; Rigor did not hold that the place of deposit can never confer jurisdiction. Nieva and Yalong more directly supported venue in the place where the check was deposited/presented and where the payee learned of dishonor, thereby vesting jurisdiction with the court in that territory. The Court concluded that jurisprudence permits vesting of jurisdiction in the place of deposit/presentation when evidence shows such acts occurred there.
Rejection of CA and OSG’s Narrow Venue Argument
Applying the transitory-crime principle and relevant precedents, the Supreme Court found the CA erred in concluding that none of the essential elements transpired in Makati. It held that the MeTC of Makati could properly take cognizance because the subject checks were deposited and presented for encashment at Equitable PCI Bank, Makati Branch, and the payee’s account and consequent dishonor notification occurred in Makati. Therefore, the MeTC correctly exercised territorial jurisdiction.
Procedural Issues: Rule 45, OSG Participation, and Double Jeopardy
The Court addressed procedural challenges to petitioner’s right to seek review under Rule 45 without the Solicitor General. It explained that although the OSG generally represents the State in criminal appeals, exceptions exist (e.g., when private offended party seeks relief on civil aspects, or where ends of justice require it). The Court found unique circumstances here: the OSG opposed petitioner’s position and the CA decision was a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction (not an acquittal on merits). A dismissal for lack of territorial jurisdiction is not an acquittal and therefore does not invoke double jeopardy. The Court further explained that when the dismissal is not an acquittal and the legal question is purely one of law, review under Rule 45 is appropriate. The three requisites to avoid double jeopardy (dismissal made with consent of defendant; dismissal not based on merits; question purely legal) were present, so petitioner’s recourse was not barred
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 163788)
Case Caption, Citation, and Panel
- Reported at 775 Phil. 192, Third Division, G.R. No. 198270, December 09, 2015 (Decision rendered December 9, 2015; original received January 7, 2016).
- Captioned: Armilyn Morillo, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines and Richard Natividad, respondents.
- Decision penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Peralta, J.; the Supreme Court majority opinion announced by Peralta, J.; concurring Justices: Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr., and Reyes. Designated additional member noted: Justice Villarama, Jr. in lieu of Justice Jardeleza per raffle dated September 10, 2014.
- Clerk of Court notice dated January 7, 2016 (Division Clerk of Court: Wilfredo V. Lapitan) attached to the rollo.
Nature of the Petition and Relief Sought
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
- Petitioner seeks reversal and setting aside of the Court of Appeals Decision dated January 18, 2011 and Resolution dated August 9, 2011 in CA-G.R. CR No. 32723.
- Relief sought: reinstatement of the MeTC and RTC rulings (Decision dated February 23, 2009 and Order dated July 13, 2009 of the RTC affirming the Metropolis Trial Court Joint Decision dated September 3, 2008) that had found respondent guilty of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) and ordered payment.
Antecedent Facts (Transaction and Documentary Evidence)
- In July 2003, Richard Natividad, Milo Malong, and Bing Nanquil, representing themselves as contractors under the name RB Custodio Construction in Pampanga City, purchased construction materials from petitioner Armilyn Morillo, owner of Amasea General Merchandize and Construction Supplies, for their project located inside the Subic Freeport Zone.
- Parties agreed: twenty percent (20%) of purchases to be paid within seven (7) days after first delivery; remaining eighty percent (80%) to be paid within thirty-five (35) days after last delivery; payments to be by post-dated checks.
- Petitioner delivered construction materials totaling ₱500,054.00 to the construction site.
- After last delivery, respondent paid ₱20,000.00 cash and issued two post-dated Metrobank checks: ₱393,000.00 and ₱87,054.00.
- Petitioner attempted to deposit the checks in her Equitable PCI Bank (San Lorenzo, Makati) savings account; the drawee bank dishonored them.
- Petitioner promptly informed respondent and partners and demanded payment; respondent issued two replacement post-dated Metrobank checks and assured they would be honored.
- Upon deposit at Equitable PCI Bank, Makati branch, the replacement checks were again dishonored because the drawee account was already closed.
- Petitioner made multiple demands to respondent and partners to no avail, prompting a complaint with the City Prosecution Office, Makati City.
Informations and Accusatory Allegations (Criminal Case Nos. 337902-03)
- Two (2) Informations filed August 12, 2004 (Criminal Case Nos. 337902 and 337903) charging respondent (and Milo Malong) for violation of BP 22 based on issuance of post-dated checks.
- Criminal Case No. 337902 charged issuance of Check No. 2960203217, drawn against Metrobank, amount ₱434,430.00, postdated October 20, 2003; alleged lack of sufficient funds/credit; check presented within 90 days, dishonored for reason "Account Closed"; maker received notice and failed to pay or arrange for full payment within five (5) banking days after notice.
- Criminal Case No. 337903 charged issuance of Check No. 2960203218, drawn against Metrobank, amount ₱13,032.00, postdated October 20, 2003; similar allegations regarding insufficient funds/credit, dishonor for "Account Closed", and failure to pay or make arrangements within five (5) banking days after notice.
- Informations averred venue as the City of Makati, Metro Manila.
Prosecutorial Recommendation and MeTC Proceedings
- Assistant City Prosecutor, on September 15, 2004, issued Resolution recommending charging respondent and his partners with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the RPC, and violation of BP 22; the BP 22 charges were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 337902-03.
- Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Joint Decision dated September 3, 2008 found respondent Richard Natividad GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of B.P. Blg. 22 for each check:
- Sentence: fined equivalent to ₱200,000.00 for Check No. 2960203217 and ₱13,032.00 for Check No. 2960203218, total penalty ₱213,032.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
- Co-accused Milo Malong acquitted for reasonable doubt.
- Both accused ordered jointly to pay private complainant the face value of the two checks, ₱447,462.00, with interest at 12% per annum and 3% penalty per month as stipulated in invoices, reckoned from date of receipt of demand (February 28, 2004) until fully paid, plus costs of suit.
- All other claims dismissed for lack of evidence.
Appeal to RTC: Issues Raised and RTC Ruling (Criminal Case Nos. 08-1876-77)
- Respondent appealed to the RTC asserting: lack of jurisdiction of MeTC of Makati City because checks were issued, drawn, and delivered in Subic/Pampanga; venue improperly laid in Makati as none of the elements occurred there.
- Respondent also alleged procedural defect: during retaking of petitioner’s testimony on March 14, 2008, records did not show the public prosecutor present or that prosecution was properly delegated to the private prosecutor; therefore proceedings void.
- RTC Decision dated February 23, 2009 affirmed MeTC ruling:
- Held respondent failed to raise the issue of authority of private prosecutor during the March 14, 2008 proceeding at the trial court; since not raised earlier, it would be unjust to set aside all proceedings after adverse judgment.
- Jurisdiction issue rejected: BP 22 is a continuing/transitory offense; jurisdiction may be had in several places where acts material to the crime occurred. The RTC reasoned that checks were presented and dishonored in Makati City (collecting bank located there and private complainant's account maintained there), so jurisdiction was proper in Makati.
- Consequently, RTC dismissed the appeal and affirmed MeTC decision in full.
Court of Appeals Decision (January 18, 2011) — Reversal and Dismissal for Improper Venue
- Court of Appeals reversed lower courts and dismissed the case without prejudice to refiling in proper venue (Pampanga).
- CA reasoning:
- The first element (drawing/issuance) occurred in Pampanga: checks issued to complainant at her office in Pampanga and drawn from Metrobank Pampanga branch.
- Knowledge of dishonor