PEOPLE v. GROSPE (1988)

FACTS:

Manuel Parulan, is an authorized wholesale dealer of San Miguel Corp (SMC). He was charged with BP 22 at the RTC for issuing a dishonored check in 1983 in favor of SMC (for insufficiency of funds) and, in spite of repeated demands, failed and refused to make good said check to the damage of SMC. He was also charged with Estafa for issuing another check for payment of the beer he purchased and refused to redeem said check despite repeated demands

Trial court of Pampanga dismissed the case because it said, that deceit and damage, the elements of the crimes did not occur in Pampanga, therefore, this court has no jurisdiction. The checks were made in Guiguinto, Bulacan, and delivered to SMC also in Bulacan.  Were deposited in Planter’s Bank (drawee bank) at Santa Maria, Bulacan and was received by BPI at San Fernando, Pampanga for clearing purposes.

Sol Gen points that 2 checks are involved. That Parulan issued PDB’s check (Bulacan) and was received by SMC at Bulacan. Then it was forwarded to SMC San Fernando, Pampanga where it was received by te Finance Officer and deposited with BPI San Fernando Branch then the SMC depository bank received a notice of dishonor for "insufficiency of funds" from the drawee bank, the PDB, in Santa Maria, Bulacan. This check was the subject of Estafa. For Violation of the Bouncing Checks Law, on the other hand, the elements of deceit and damage are not essential nor required. An essential element of that offense is knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of the check of the insufficiency of his funds, it being mala prohibitum

ISSUE/S:WON the venue (RTC Pampanga) was proper  

HELD: YES, both for Estafa and BP 22

Section 15(a) of Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure: (a) In all criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province wherein the offense was committed or any one of the essential ingredients thereof took place.

In other words, a person charged with a transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or province where the offense was in part committed. However, if the acts material and essential to the crime and requisite of its consummation occurred in one municipality or territory, the Court of that municipality or territory has the sole jurisdiction to try the case

Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check, may be a transitory or continuing offense. Its basic elements of deceit and damage may arise independently in separate places. In this case, deceit took place in San Fernando, Pampanga, while the damage was inflicted in Bulacan where the cheek was dishonored by the drawee bank in that place. Jurisdiction may, therefore, be entertained by either the Bulacan Court or the Pampanga Court.

For while the subject check was issued in Guiguinto, Bulacan, it was not completely drawn thereat, but in San Fernando, Pampanga, where it was uttered and delivered.Because although the check was received by the SMC Sales Supervisor at Guiguinto, Bulacan, that was not the delivery in contemplation of law to the payee, SMC.

What is of decisive importance is the delivery thereof. The delivery of the instrument is the final act essential to its consummation as an obligation

In respect of the Bouncing Checks Case, the offense also appears to be continuing in nature. It is true that the offense is committed by the very fact of its performance,  and that the Bouncing Checks Law penalizes not only the fact of dishonor of a check but also the act of making or drawing and issuance of a bouncing check. The case, therefore, could have been filed also in Bulacan.

However, it is likewise true that knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of the check of the insufficiency of his funds, which is an essential ingredient of the offense is by itself a continuing eventuality, whether the accused be within one territory or another

Accordingly, jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense also lies in the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga.