CECILIO S. DE VILLA, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HONORABLE JOB B. MADAYAG, AND ROBERTO Z. LORAYES, RESPONDENTS.

De Villa versus Court of Appeals

The Case

Cecilio de Villa against the Court of Appeals, the People of the Philippines, Judge Job Madayag, and Roberto Lorayes. This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by an accused in a criminal case for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law, Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. De Villa was charged with issuing a check that was dishonored for insufficient funds, and he attacks the jurisdiction of the Makati trial court over the offense, insisting that because the check was drawn in dollars against a foreign account, the Bouncing Checks Law does not reach it. The case matters because it settles two questions every bar candidate must know: how venue and jurisdiction in a bouncing-check prosecution are determined, and whether the Bouncing Checks Law covers checks in foreign currency.

Procedural History

De Villa was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 145, with violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. After arraignment and after the private complainant had testified on direct examination, de Villa moved to dismiss the Information on two grounds: that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the offense charged, and that no offense was committed because the check was payable in dollars, making the obligation void under Republic Act Number 529. The trial court denied the motion in an order dated July 19, 1988, and denied his motion for reconsideration in an order dated September 6, 1988.

De Villa then filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, seeking to annul those two orders. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition in a decision promulgated on February 1, 1989, and later denied his motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated March 3, 1989. De Villa came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari. The Second Division gave due course to the petition and required the parties to submit their memoranda.

Facts

On October 5, 1987, an Information was filed against Cecilio de Villa before the Regional Trial Court of Makati. It alleged that on or about April 3, 1987, in Makati, de Villa willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously made, drew, and issued to Roberto Lorayes a Depositors Trust Company check, numbered 3371 and antedated March 31, 1987, payable to the complainant in the total amount of 2,500 United States dollars, equivalent to 50,000 pesos, to apply on account or for value.

The Information further alleged that de Villa knew at the time of issue that he had no sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank for full payment of the check upon presentment, and that when the check was presented within ninety days from its date, it was dishonored for the reason insufficient funds. Despite receiving notice of the dishonor, de Villa failed to pay the amount or to make arrangements for full payment within five banking days after receiving notice.

After arraignment and after the private respondent had testified, de Villa moved to dismiss. He argued that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the offense and that no offense was committed because the check was payable in dollars, so that the obligation was void under Republic Act Number 529. The trial court rejected both arguments, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

• Whether or not the Regional Trial Court of Makati has jurisdiction over the offense charged, considering that the check was drawn against the dollar account of the petitioner with a foreign bank.
• Whether or not the Bouncing Checks Law, Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, covers a check drawn in foreign currency against a foreign account.

Applicable Provisions

Section 10 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 10. Place of the commission of the offense. The complaint or information is sufficient if it can be understood therefrom that the offense was committed or some of the essential ingredients thereof occurred at some place within the jurisdiction of the court, unless the particular place wherein it was committed constitutes an essential element of the offense or is necessary for identifying the offense charged.

This provision governs the sufficiency of the Information and anchors the Court's holding that the allegations of the Information determine jurisdiction and venue.

Section 15, paragraph (a) of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 15. Place where action is to be instituted. (a) Subject to existing laws, in all criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the offense was committed or any of the essential ingredients thereof took place.

This provision fixes venue in criminal cases at the place where the offense or any of its essential ingredients took place, which in this case is Makati, where the check was executed and delivered.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court's jurisdiction cannot be questioned. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action. Under Sections 10 and 15 of Rule 110, the complaint or information is sufficient if it can be understood that the offense, or some of its essential ingredients, occurred at some place within the jurisdiction of the court. Jurisdiction and venue are determined by the allegations in the Information. Here, the Information specifically alleged that the offense was committed in Makati, Metro Manila, and that allegation is controlling and sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the Regional Trial Court of Makati. The Court also noted that the determinative factor in determining venue is the place of the issuance of the check, and it is undisputed that the check was executed and delivered by the petitioner to the private respondent in Makati.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Bouncing Checks Law does not distinguish the currency involved. It recalled the trial court's ruling that foreign checks, provided they are either drawn and issued in the Philippines though payable outside thereof, are within the coverage of the law. The Court applied the cardinal principle of statutory construction that where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish, and the rule that where the law does not make any exception, courts may not except something unless compelling reasons exist to justify it. The Court also looked to the deliberations of the Batasang Pambansa, which showed that the intention of the lawmakers was to apply the law to whatever currency may be the subject of the check. In the floor deliberation, the sponsor, Mr. Mendoza, stated that the bill refers to any check, and that the check may be in whatever currency, not even limited to United States dollar checks, but may be in French francs or Japanese yen, and if drawn, the bill will apply.

Doctrine

First, jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action, and in criminal cases jurisdiction and venue are determined by the allegations in the Information. If the Information alleges that the offense, or some of its essential ingredients, was committed within the court's territory, that allegation vests jurisdiction.

Second, for a violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, venue lies at the place where the check was executed and delivered, because delivery is the final act essential to its consummation as an obligation. The place where the check was written, signed, or dated does not necessarily fix the place of execution.

Third, the Bouncing Checks Law does not distinguish the currency involved. A check drawn and issued in the Philippines, even if payable outside the country or drawn against a foreign currency account, falls within its coverage. This rests on the maxim that where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish, and on the legislative intent drawn from the deliberations of the Batasang Pambansa.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed for lack of merit, and the decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed, so that de Villa lost and the prosecution before the Makati trial court stood.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the Bouncing Checks Law does not distinguish the currency involved, and venue lies where the check was executed and delivered. Examiners use this case to test jurisdiction and venue in bouncing-check prosecutions and the coverage of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 over foreign-currency checks.