Lim v. Rodrigo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Ko Hu issued five postdated checks totaling P200,000.00 to petitioner Benito Lim's brother, Vicente Lim, in Manila, allegedly in payment of an obligation. Upon presentment for payment in Baguio City, the checks were dishonored for being drawn against a closed account. Petitioner subsequently filed a complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) with the Baguio City Fiscal's Office. Procedural History: Following the filing of an Information in the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, private respondent moved for its withdrawal, citing improper venue. The Fiscal's Office recommended withdrawal, which was opposed by petitioner. Petitioner also filed a petition for review with the Deputy Minister of Justice. Both the Deputy Minister and the Regional Trial Court Judge denied petitioner's recourse, with the Judge ordering the withdrawal of the Information. This led to the present petition. The Petition: Petitioner Benito Lim seeks a writ of certiorari to set aside the Regional Trial Court's order allowing the withdrawal of the Information. The core issue is the venue for the prosecution of the violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Petitioner argues that delivery of the checks to his brother, Vicente Lim, in Manila did not constitute delivery to him, as Vicente was merely a messenger sent to retrieve stock certificates and not the checks themselves. Therefore, delivery was effectively made in Baguio City, establishing venue there, in addition to Manila where the checks were executed and dishonored. The petition relies on established jurisprudence regarding venue in bad check cases, particularly the principle that delivery to a holder or agent is determinative.
Issue(s)
Whether the venue for the prosecution of violations of B.P. Blg. 22 was properly fixed in Baguio City. Whether the delivery of the checks to Vicente Lim constituted delivery to the petitioner, Benito Lim, for purposes of determining venue.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Order dated November 28, 1986, is SET ASIDE, and the Information is REINSTATED. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the case without further delay.
Ratio Decidendi
On the venue for violations of B.P. Blg. 22: The Court reiterated the principle established in People v. Yabut and People v. Grospe that venue for violations of B.P. Blg. 22 is determined by the place of delivery of the check. The place where a check was written, signed, or dated does not solely fix the venue; the decisive act is the delivery to the payee or holder. The Court emphasized that delivery must be to a person who takes the check as a holder, meaning the payee or indorsee in possession, or the bearer thereof. The Court also referenced People v. Manzanilla, stating that knowledge, an essential ingredient of the offense, is a continuing eventuality, which supports the jurisdiction of the court where the offense was consummated or where the effects were felt. Furthermore, the Court held that jurisdiction or venue is determined by the allegations in the Information, and the allegation that the offense was committed in Baguio City was controlling. On whether the delivery to Vicente Lim constituted delivery to the petitioner: The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that delivery to Vicente Lim did not constitute delivery to Benito Lim for the purpose of fixing venue. Citing People v. Yabut, the Court distinguished between a holder and a mere messenger or conduit. Vicente Lim was neither the payee nor an indorsee of the checks, and thus did not take them as a holder. The Court found no contract of agency between Benito Lim and Vicente Lim with respect to the checks. Vicente Lim was sent to get stock certificates, and he received the checks instead, which surprised petitioner. The Court concluded that Vicente Lim was a mere messenger or conduit, similar to Modesto Yambao in the Yabut case. Therefore, delivery to Vicente Lim in Manila did not constitute delivery to Benito Lim in Baguio City, and delivery was effectively made to Benito Lim in Baguio City, thus fixing the venue there.
Main Doctrine
The venue for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is determined by the place of delivery of the check, and delivery to a mere messenger or conduit does not constitute delivery to the payee for the purpose of fixing venue.