People v. Manzanilla
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Lourdes Tan Chua entered into a contract for the supply of goods for P370,000.00. In payment, she issued two postdated checks: one for P10,000.00 signed by Johnny Tan Chua and another for P15,000.00 signed by Lourdes Tan Chua. Both checks were drawn and signed in Iloilo City. The checks were subsequently deposited in Bacolod City but were dishonored for insufficient funds. Despite demands, the private respondents failed to make good the checks. Procedural History: The City Fiscal of Bacolod City filed separate informations for violation of Batas Blg. 22 against Johnny Tan Chua and Lourdes Tan Chua. After consolidation and joint arraignment, the private respondents moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which was denied. The prosecution rested its case. Subsequently, the private respondents filed a second motion to dismiss, again asserting lack of jurisdiction and insufficiency of evidence. The respondent trial court, per Judge Herberto A. Manzanilla, dismissed the cases for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the offenses were consummated in Iloilo City where the checks were dishonored. An order denying reconsideration was subsequently issued. The Petition: The People of the Philippines appealed the dismissal orders of the Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental, arguing that jurisdiction was properly vested in the Bacolod City court because the checks were delivered to the payee in Bacolod City.
Issue(s)
Whether the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City has jurisdiction over the offense of violation of Batas Blg. 22 when the checks were drawn and signed in Iloilo City but issued and delivered to the payee in Bacolod City. Whether the dismissal of the criminal cases for violation of Batas Blg. 22 was proper.
Ruling
The Orders dated August 9, 1983, and October 18, 1983, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. Costs against the private respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City has jurisdiction over the offense of violation of Batas Blg. 22 when the checks were drawn and signed in Iloilo City but issued and delivered to the payee in Bacolod City: The Court held that the respondent judge erred in dismissing the cases for lack of jurisdiction. Violation of Batas Blg. 22 is committed when one "makes or draws and issues" any check, "knowing" at the time of issue that there are insufficient funds, or fails to keep sufficient funds to cover the check within ninety days, for which reason it is "dishonored." Dishonor is only one ingredient of the offense, and the respondent judge discounted the elements of "making or drawing and issuing" and "knowledge" at the time of issue. The Court emphasized that "knowledge" is a continuing eventuality and is sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the trial court. Furthermore, the act of issuing bad checks is a malum prohibitum, committed by the very fact of its performance, and jurisdiction or venue is determined by the allegations in the information. In this case, the information alleged that the offense was committed in Bacolod City, thus substantially complying with the legal requirements for venue. On Whether the dismissal of the criminal cases for violation of Batas Blg. 22 was proper: The dismissal was improper because the trial court erroneously concluded it lacked jurisdiction. The Court found that the elements of the offense, particularly the issuance of the checks with knowledge of insufficient funds, could have occurred or continued within the territorial jurisdiction of Bacolod City, where the checks were delivered to the payee. The information explicitly stated that the offense was committed in Bacolod City, which, for a malum prohibitum offense, is sufficient to establish venue. Therefore, the cases should not have been dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and must be remanded for further proceedings.
Main Doctrine
Jurisdiction for violation of Batas Blg. 22 may be established not only by the place of dishonor but also by the place of issuance or where the drawer had knowledge of insufficient funds, as the offense is a malum prohibitum and jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the information.