1) Richard Natividad purchased construction materials worth 500,054 PHP from Armilyn and paid with post-dated checks that were later dishonored.
2) Armilyn filed a case against Richard under the Bouncing Checks Law in Makati City court, where she deposited the checks. However, Richard argued the court had no jurisdiction as the checks were issued, drawn, and delivered in Pampanga.
3) While violations of the Bouncing Checks Law are considered continuing crimes that can be tried where elements occurred, the Supreme Court ruled the Makati court did not have jurisdiction, as all elements took place in Pampanga, specifically where the checks were issued and dishonored. The proper venue
1) Richard Natividad purchased construction materials worth 500,054 PHP from Armilyn and paid with post-dated checks that were later dishonored.
2) Armilyn filed a case against Richard under the Bouncing Checks Law in Makati City court, where she deposited the checks. However, Richard argued the court had no jurisdiction as the checks were issued, drawn, and delivered in Pampanga.
3) While violations of the Bouncing Checks Law are considered continuing crimes that can be tried where elements occurred, the Supreme Court ruled the Makati court did not have jurisdiction, as all elements took place in Pampanga, specifically where the checks were issued and dishonored. The proper venue
1) Richard Natividad purchased construction materials worth 500,054 PHP from Armilyn and paid with post-dated checks that were later dishonored.
2) Armilyn filed a case against Richard under the Bouncing Checks Law in Makati City court, where she deposited the checks. However, Richard argued the court had no jurisdiction as the checks were issued, drawn, and delivered in Pampanga.
3) While violations of the Bouncing Checks Law are considered continuing crimes that can be tried where elements occurred, the Supreme Court ruled the Makati court did not have jurisdiction, as all elements took place in Pampanga, specifically where the checks were issued and dishonored. The proper venue
Facts In July, 2003, Richard Natividad, Milo Malong and Bing Nanquil, representing themselves as contractors with business in Pamanga, bought contraction materials from Armilyn, worth P500,054.00. Per their agreement, 20% of the amount should be paid within seven days, while the remaining 80% shall be paid within 35 days, with post-dated checks. After the last delivery, Richard paid P20,000.00 and issued two post-dated checks drawn from Metrobank, Pampanga branch. Upon maturity, Armilyn deposited the checks in her account with Equitable PCI Bank; they were however. When Armilyn communicated the fact of dishonour to Richard, the latter replaced the checks with two post-dated Metrobank checks, which again were dishonored. Despite demand, Richard and his partners failed to make good on the checks, hence Armilyn filed a case for BP 22 against Richard and Milo Malong before the MeTC of Makati City. After trial, the MeTC Makati City convicted Richard as charged, hence he appealed to the RTC, arguing that the MeTC of Makati City had no jurisdiction over the case. He asserted that since the subject checks were issued, drawn, and delivered to petitioner in Subic, the venue of the action was improperly laid for none of the elements of the offense actually transpired in Makati City. He also assailed the absence of the public prosecutor, as the latter delegated the prosecution of the case to the private prosecutor. The RTC affirmed the conviction. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the lower courts. It ruled that MeTC had no jurisdiction over the case, as all the elements of the crime of BP 22 happened in Pampanga. The checks were issued in Richards office in Pampanga; the knowledge of dishonor also happened in Pampanga, when Armilyn proceeded to Richards office and informed him of the dishonor of the checks; the third element of dishonor of the checks by the drawee bank also occurred in Pampanga, where Metrobank Pampanga is located. Since all the elements of the crime happened in Pampanga, thhe case should have been filed in Pampanga, not where Armilyn deposited the checks, in Makati City. Aggrieved, Armilyn appealed to the Supreme Court. Issue Whether or not the court of the place where the checks were deposited, had jurisdiction to try a case for BP 22. Held It is well settled that violations of BP 22 cases are categorized as 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. In such cases, the court wherein any of the crimes essential and material acts have been committed maintains jurisdiction to try the case; it being understood that the first court taking cognizance of the same excludes the other. Thus, 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 OSG, relying on our ruling in Rigor v. People, concluded that the Supreme Court regarded the place of deposit and the place of dishonor as distinct from one another and considered the place where the check was issued, delivered and dishonored, and not where the check was deposited, as the proper venue for the filing of a B.P. Blg. 22 case. The Court, however, cannot sustain such conclusion. In said case, She accused therein obtained a loan from the Rural Bank of San Juan, Metro Manila, and in payment thereof, he issued a check drawn against Associated Bank of Tarlac. Thereafter, Rural Bank deposited the check at PS Bank, San Juan, but the same was returned for the reason that it had been dishonored by Associated Bank of Tarlac. When all other efforts to demand the repayment of the loan proved futile, Rural Bank filed an action against the accused for violation of BP 22 at the RTC of Pasig City, wherein crimes committed in. San Juan are triable. The accused, however, contends that the RTC of Pasig had no jurisdiction thereon since no proof had been offered to show that his check was issued, delivered, dishonored or that knowledge of beneficiency of funds occurred in the Municipality of San Juan. The Court, however, disagreed and held that while the check was dishonored by the drawee. Associated Bank, in its Tarlac Branch, evidence clearly showed that the accused had drawn, issued and delivered it at Rural Bank, San Juan, viz.: Lastly, positioner contends that the Regional Trial Court of Pasig had no jurisdiction over this case since no proof has been offered that his check was issued, delivered, dishonored or that knowledge of insufficiency of funds occurred in the Municipality of San Juan, Metro Manila.