People v. Yabut
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Cecilia Que Yabut was accused of estafa for issuing postdated checks (CB-19035 B, CB-190396, CB-190397) totaling P6,568.94, drawn against Merchants Banking Corporation, payable to Freeway Tires Supply, in payment for merchandise. She allegedly knew she had insufficient funds. Geminiano Yabut, Jr. was similarly accused of estafa for issuing multiple postdated checks totaling P37,206.00, drawn against Merchants Banking Corporation and Manufacturers Bank and Trust Company, payable to Freeway Tires Supply and Freeway Caltex Station, for merchandise and services, also allegedly knowing of insufficient funds. Procedural History: In both cases, the accused filed motions to quash the informations. Their primary contentions were that the acts charged did not constitute estafa because the checks were issued in payment of pre-existing obligations and that venue was improperly laid in Bulacan, as the checks were allegedly issued and delivered in Caloocan City. The trial courts, presided over by Judge Jesus de Vega (for Cecilia Que Yabut) and Judge Edgardo L. Paras (for Geminiano Yabut, Jr.), granted the motions to quash. The People's motions for reconsideration were denied. The People then filed petitions for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: The People of the Philippines filed petitions for review on certiorari, arguing that the quashal orders of the respondent trial courts were erroneous. They contended that the new law on checks (Rep. Act 4885, amending Art. 315, par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code) penalizes the postdating or issuance of checks in payment of pre-existing obligations. They also argued that the venue was properly laid in Bulacan because the damage, a crucial element of estafa, transpired there after the checks were dishonored, and that the delivery of the checks, for venue purposes, occurred in Malolos, Bulacan, where the payee's business was located and where the underlying transactions for the merchandise took place.
Issue(s)
Whether the issuance of postdated checks in payment of a pre-existing obligation constitutes estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the venue for estafa involving the issuance of worthless checks is properly laid in the place where the checks were uttered and delivered, even if they were drawn or dated elsewhere. Whether the delivery of checks to a mere messenger or part-time employee constitutes delivery to the complainant for the purpose of establishing venue.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the orders of the respondent trial courts quashing the estafa informations. It held that the facts charged in the informations substantially constitute the offense of estafa and that the venue was properly laid in Bulacan. The Court ordered the arraignment of the private respondents and the immediate trial on the merits.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the facts charged in the informations, if hypothetically admitted, substantially constitute the elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code. The Court noted that while the parties differed on whether the obligation was pre-existing, the prosecution asserted it would prove the checks were not in payment of a pre-existing obligation. The Court deferred a definitive ruling on this specific aspect due to the absence of concrete evidence on the nature of the obligation, deeming it a matter for trial. However, it affirmed that the averments in the informations sufficiently informed the accused of the charges against them, meeting the requirements for a valid information. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that estafa involving the issuance of worthless checks is a transitory or continuing offense. Jurisdiction can be entertained by the courts of any province where any element of the offense occurred. While the checks might have been written, signed, or dated in Caloocan City, they were uttered and delivered in Malolos, Bulacan. The Court emphasized that the delivery of the check is the decisive act essential to its consummation as an obligation. Therefore, the element of deceit through the issuance and delivery of the worthless checks to the complainant took place in Malolos, Bulacan, conferring jurisdiction upon the court in that locality. The place of business and residence of the payee, Alicia P. Andan, was also in Malolos, Bulacan, and the purchases were made from her establishments there. On Issue 3: The Court clarified that the receipt of the bad checks by Modesto Yambao in Caloocan City could not be considered delivery to the complainant, Alicia P. Andan, for the purpose of fixing venue there. Yambao was described as merely a "messenger" or "part-time employee" and not an agent of Andan. For a contract of agency to exist, mutual consent is essential, and the law makes no presumption thereof; the burden of proof lies with the party alleging its existence. Since Yambao was not an agent, his receipt of the checks did not constitute delivery to the principal, Andan, in Caloocan City. Consequently, the venue was not established in Caloocan City based on this purported delivery.
Main Doctrine
The Court held that estafa, particularly that involving the issuance of worthless checks, is a transitory offense. Jurisdiction can be exercised by courts of any province where any of the elements of the crime, such as deceit or damage, took place. The place of utterance and delivery of the check is considered the locus delicti. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that issuing a postdated check or a check in payment of a pre-existing obligation, knowing there are insufficient funds, constitutes estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, provided the elements of deceit and damage are sufficiently alleged and proven.