RAFFY BRODETH AND ROLAN B. ONAL, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ABRAHAM G. VILLEGAS, RESPONDENTS.

Brodeth versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Raffy Brodeth and Rolan B. Onal against the People of the Philippines and Abraham G. Villegas, assailing the affirmance by the Court of Appeals of their conviction for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the Bouncing Checks Law. The case matters because the Supreme Court, without reaching the merits of guilt, resolves a threshold question that every prosecutor and defense counsel must confront: where may a bouncing-check prosecution be filed and tried? The Court holds that territorial jurisdiction is an essential element of jurisdiction in criminal cases, that it is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information, but that if the evidence at trial shows the offense was committed elsewhere, the court must dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

Procedural History

The petitioners were charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 30 of Manila, in two criminal cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. On 2 July 2008, the Metropolitan Trial Court found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt, imposed a fine of 200,000 pesos for each check, totaling 400,000 pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and ordered them to pay Vill Integrated 283,600 pesos as civil indemnity, plus costs of suit.

The petitioners timely filed a notice of appeal, and the case was forwarded to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27 of Manila, which found no reversible error in the Metropolitan Trial Court's decision and affirmed it in toto. After the Regional Trial Court denied their motion for reconsideration, the petitioners filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals, which denied the appeal and later denied their motion for reconsideration. The petitioners then filed the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Facts

Abraham G. Villegas, Operations Manager of Vill Integrated Transportation Corporation, alleged that his company transacted with Land and Sea Resources Phils., Incorporated, providing the latter equipment and tugboats for its operations. Land and Sea Resources used the equipment, made partial payments, but never fully settled its billings, despite repeated promises.

Among the payments made were three checks drawn against Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company. Two of them are the subject of this case: Metrobank Check Number 2700111415 dated 31 August 1999 in the amount of 140,000 pesos, and Metrobank Check Number 2700111416 dated 5 September 1999 in the amount of 123,600 pesos. When deposited, both were dishonored for the reason drawn against insufficient funds. Vill Integrated sent demand letters dated 9 October 1999 and 3 May 2000, but the account was not settled, so a criminal complaint was filed on 23 November 2000.

In their defense, the petitioners claimed that the balance pertaining to the subject checks had been settled in cash, received by an officer of Vill Integrated, and that the outstanding accounts were not the obligations of Land and Sea Resources but of one Noli Dela Cerna. The Metropolitan Trial Court rejected these defenses, finding no documentary proof of payment and noting that the petitioners admitted having received the demand letters. On appeal, the petitioners also argued that the Metropolitan Trial Court had no territorial jurisdiction, because the allegation that the checks were issued in Manila rested solely on the affidavit-complaint of Villegas, who had no firsthand knowledge of the transaction.

Issues

• Whether or not the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila had territorial jurisdiction over the offense charged.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erroneously relied on hearsay evidence to establish the territorial jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erroneously applied a presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds despite the prosecution's failure to prove that the petitioners could be charged with knowledge of the corporate funds.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erroneously affirmed the conviction despite the prosecution's failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Applicable Provisions

Section 15, paragraph a, of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, on the place where the action is instituted, provides:

Criminal actions shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory wherein the offense was committed or where any of the essential ingredients thereof took place.

This provision fixes venue and jurisdiction in criminal cases, and the Court uses it to test whether the offense charged could be tried in Manila at all.

Section 1 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the provision the petitioners were charged with violating, provides:

Any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment, shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one year or by a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check which fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.

This is the offense charged, and its essential ingredients, including the drawing and issuing of the check, determine where the case may be filed and tried.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioners. Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of or to try the offense allegedly committed therein by the accused. The place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction. The fact of where the offense charged was committed is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint or information, and once so shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case. But if the evidence adduced during the trial shows that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.

The Court found that the only piece of evidence connecting the alleged violation to the territorial jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court was the affidavit-complaint of Villegas, where the phrase in Manila appeared only once, in the ninth paragraph, where the elements of the offense were already being summarized. Villegas was not privy to the contractual negotiations with Land and Sea Resources, nor present when the checks were issued. His own cross-examination established that he was not involved in dealing with customers, was not a signatory to the contract, and was not in any way involved in the transaction with the accused. The Court also noted that Vill Integrated's liaison officer admitted the company collects payments from clients in their respective offices, and that Land and Sea Resources' principal place of business is in Makati City, making it out of the ordinary course of business for the petitioners to go all the way to Manila just to issue the checks.

On the second issue, the Court agreed with the petitioners that the lower courts should not have relied on the allegation of Villegas, for being hearsay, since he had no firsthand knowledge of the transaction. The Court resolved the case on this ground without having to consider the other two assignments of error.

On the third and fourth issues, the Court did not reach the merits of knowledge of insufficiency of funds or of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, because the petition was resolved on the jurisdictional ground.

Doctrine

Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of or to try the offense allegedly committed therein by the accused. The place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction, and the court cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense allegedly committed outside of that limited territory.

Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information, and once it is so shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case. However, if the evidence adduced during the trial shows that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.

Violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 are transitory or continuing crimes, meaning that some acts material and essential thereto and requisite in their consummation occur in one municipality or territory while some occur in another. The court wherein any of the crime's essential and material acts have been committed maintains jurisdiction to try the case, and a person charged with a continuing or transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or territory where the offense was in part committed. The place of deposit and presentment of the check may confer jurisdiction, as the Court explained in Nieva, Junior versus Court of Appeals, where the check was deposited and presented for encashment with the Angeles City branch of the bank, conferring jurisdiction on the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga.

An allegation of the place of issuance in an affidavit-complaint is hearsay and insufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction where the affiant had no firsthand knowledge of the transaction and was not present when the checks were issued.

Disposition

The Court granted the petition, set aside the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, and dismissed the case for lack of territorial jurisdiction on the part of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila.

Remember This

Memorize this line: territorial jurisdiction is an essential element of jurisdiction in criminal cases, determined by the allegations of the complaint or information, but if the evidence at trial shows the offense was committed elsewhere, the court must dismiss for want of jurisdiction. Examiners use this case to test the transitory nature of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 violations, the places where a bouncing-check case may be filed, and the rule that a hearsay allegation of the place of issuance cannot confer jurisdiction.