45. RIGOR VS.

PEOPLE funds at the time he issued the check, such knowledge by the payee is
immaterial as deceit is not an essential element of the offense under Batas
450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Pambansa Bilang 22. The gravamen of the offense is the issuance of a bad
Rigor vs. People check; hence, malice and intent in the issuance thereof are inconsequential.
G.R. No. 144887. November 17, 2004.* Negotiable Instruments Law; Notice of Dishonor of a Check;The notice
ALFREDO RIGOR, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, of dishonor of a check may be sent to the drawer or maker by the drawee bank,
respondent. the holder of the check, or the offended party either by personal delivery or by
Criminal Law; Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22; Elements; The registered mail. The notice of dishonor to the maker of a check must be in
elements of the offense are: (1) making, drawing, and issuance of any check writing.—The notice of dishonor of a check may be sent to the drawer or maker
to apply on account or for value; (2) knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer by the
that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the 452
drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) 452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds Rigor vs. People
or credit, or dishonor of the check for the same reason had not the drawer, drawee bank, the holder of the check, or the offended party either by
without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.—Petitioner is personal delivery or by registered mail. The notice of dishonor to the maker of
charged with violation of Section 1 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, a check must be in writing.
_______________ Criminal Law; Violations of B.P. Blg. 22; Continuing Crimes;Remedial
* FIRST DIVISION. Law; Jurisdiction; Violations of BP Blg. 22 are categorized as transitory or
451 continuing crimes; In such crimes, some acts material and essential to the
VOL. 442, NOVEMBER 17, 2004 451 crimes and requisite to their consummation occur in one municipality or
Rigor vs. People territory and some in another, in which event, the court of either has jurisdiction
thus: SECTION 1. Checks without sufficient funds.—Any person who to try the cases, it being understood that the first court taking cognizance of
makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, the case excludes the other.—Violations of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 are
knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit categorized as transitory or continuing crimes. In such crimes, some acts
with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its material and essential to the crimes and requisite to their consummation occur
presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for in one municipality or territory and some in another, in which event, the court
insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same of either has jurisdiction to try the cases, it being understood that the first court
reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop taking cognizance of the case excludes the other. Hence, a person charged
payment, shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than thirty days but with a transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or territory where
not more than one (1) year or by a fine of not less than but not more than the offense was in part committed.
double the amount of the check which fine shall in no case exceed Two PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
hundred thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
of the court. The elements of the offense are: (1) Making, drawing, and Jesus A. Concepcion for petitioner.
issuance of any check to apply on account or for value; (2) knowledge of the The Solicitor General for the People.
maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient AZCUNA, J.:
funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals,
upon its presentment; and (3) subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee in CA-G.R. CR No. 18855, which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial
bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or dishonor of the check for the same Court of Pasig, Branch 163, in Criminal Case No. 86025, convicting petitioner
reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop Alfredo Rigor of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the Bouncing Checks
payment. Law), and imposing upon him the penalty of imprisonment for six (6) months
Same; Same; Same; Assuming arguendo that the payee had knowledge and ordering him to restitute to the Rural Bank of San Juan the sum of
that he had insufficient funds at the time he issued the check, such knowledge P500,000 and to pay the costs.
by the payee is immaterial as deceit is not an essential element of the offense 453
under B.P. Blg. 22; The gravamen of the offense is the issuance of a bad VOL. 442, NOVEMBER 17, 2004 453
check—hence malice and intent in the issuance thereof are inconsequential.— Rigor vs. People
Assuming arguendo that the payee had knowledge that he had insufficient The Information1 against petitioner reads:
Page 1 of 6
That on or about the 16th day of November 1989 in the Municipality of San one considering that he is the “kumpare” of the President of RBSJ and he is
Juan, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable well-known to all the bank’s directors since he, like them, comes from Tarlac.
Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and Appellant failed to pay his loan upon its maturity on December 16,
feloniously make or draw and issue to Rural Bank of San Juan, Inc. thru its 1989. He personally asked de Guzman for a two-monthextension and advised
loan officer Carlos N. Garcia, a postdated check to apply on account or for RBSJ to date to February 16, 1990 his Associated Bank check no. 165476.
value the check described below: Failing anew to pay, he asked for another two-month extension or up to April
Check No. : 165476 16, 1990. Both requests de Guzman granted. On April 16, 1990, appellant still
Drawn against : Associated Bank, Tarlac Branch failed to pay his loan. Basangan and his co-employee, Carlos Garcia, went to
In the Amount of : P500,000.00 Tarlac to collect from appellant the amount of the loan. Appellant’s written
Dated : February 16, 1990 request for another 30-day extension was denied by de Guzman who instead,
Payable to : Rural Bank of San Juan sent him a formal demand letter dated April 25, 1990.
said accused well knowing that at the time of issue on 16 November 1989, On May 25, 1990, Associated Bank check no. 165476 was deposited with
he has already insufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank for the PS Bank, San Juan Branch. The check was later returned with the words
payment in full of the face amount of such check and that as of 2 February “closed account” stamped on its face. Associated Bank employee PASION
1990 his bank accounts were already closed and that check when presented declared that appellant’s Current Account No. 1022-001197-9 with Associated
for payment from and after the date thereof, was subsequently dishonored Bank had been closed since February 2, 1990. Appellant’s balance under the
for the reason “Account Closed” and despite receipt of notice of such bank’s statement of account as of November 16, 1989 was only P859.
dishonor, the accused failed to pay said payee the face amount of said check The most appellant had on his account was P40,000recorded on November
or to make arrangement for full payment thereof during the period of not less 19, 1989 (Exh. “K”).
than five (5) banking days after receiving notice. Basangan and Garcia, in Tarlac, advised appellant of the dishonor of his
When arraigned, petitioner pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, trial on the merits check. Appellant wrote Atty. Joselito Lim, RBSJ Chairman of the Board, about
ensued. the loan and arrangements as to the schedule of his payment. His letter was
The facts, as narrated by the Court of Appeals, are as follows: referred to de Guzman, who, in turn, sent to him another demand letter dated
The prosecution evidence was furnished by witnesses Edmarcos Basangan of September 17, 1990. The letter informed him of the dishonor of his check. De
Rural Bank of San Juan (RBSJ) and Esteban Pasion, employee of the Guzman
Associated Bank. It was shown that on November 16, 1989, appellant 455
(petitioner herein) applied for a commercial loan from the Rural Bank of San VOL. 442, NOVEMBER 17, 2004 455
Juan, Inc., at N. Domingo St., San Juan, Metro Manila in the sum of Rigor vs. People
P500,000.00 (Exh. “A”). required him to take the necessary step for the early settlement of his
_______________ obligation. He still refused to pay.
1 Records, p. 3.
Appellant denied the charge. He claimed that on November 16, 1989,
454 Agapito Uy and his sister Agnes Angeles proposed to him that he secure a
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED loan from the RBSJ for P500,000. P200,000 of it will be for him and the
Rigor vs. People P300,000 will go to Uy and to his sister to pay unpaid loans of borrowers in
He signed a promissory note stating that an interest of 24% per annum from their “side banking” activities. For the approval of his loan, Uy told him that
its date will be charged on the loan (Exh. “B”). The loan was approved by appellant can put up his four-door Mercedes Benz as collateral for the
RBSJ’s Bank Manager Melquecedes de Guzman and Controller Agustin Uy. P200,000 loan. The P300,000 will have no collateral. Uy also told him the he
A cashier’s check with RBSJ No. 2023424 in the amount of P487,000.00, net (Uy) has complete control of the bank and his Mercedes Benz will be enough
proceeds of the loan, was issued to appellant (Exh. “C”). Appellant endorsed, collateral for the P500,000.
then encashed the check with RBSJ Teller Eleneth Cruz, who stamped Appellant agreed to the proposal. He signed a blank loan application form
thereon the word “paid” (Exh. “C-4”). After appellant received the proceeds, and a promissory note plus a chattel mortgage for his Mercedes Benz.
he issued an undated check, Associated Bank Check No. 165476, Tarlac Thereafter, he was told to come back in two days. Uy gave him two Premiere
Branch, in the amount of P500,000, payable to RBSJ (Exh. “D”). Bank checks worth P100,000 each. He gave one check to his brother Efren
It was not the bank policy for a borrower to apply for a loan, obtain its Rigor and the other to his sister-in-law for encashment in Tarlac. He issued to
approval and its proceeds on the same day. Appellant’s case was a special Uy a personal check for P500,000 undated. This check was deposited in the
bank for encashment in the later part of May, 1990 but it bounced. When
Page 2 of 6
demand was made for him to pay his loan, he told Uy to get his Mercedes 1. 1)Absent the element of knowingly issuing a worthless check entitles
Benz as payment for P200,000 but Uy refused. Uy wanted him to pay the the petitioner to acquittal;
whole amount of P500,000.2 _______________
On July 8, 1994, the trial court rendered judgment against petitioner, the 4 Id., at pp. 185-186.

dispositive portion of which reads: 5 Supra, note 2, at p. 45.

“WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, this Court finds accused 457

Alfredo Rigor guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of VOL. 442, NOVEMBER 17, 2004 457
Section 1 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and there being no mitigating or Rigor vs. People
aggravating circumstance on record, imposes upon him the penalty of 1. 2)Without proof that accused actually received a notice of dishonor, a
imprisonment for six (6) months and to restitute to the Rural Bank of San Juan prosecution for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law cannot
the sum of P500,000.00 and to pay the costs.”3 prosper;
The trial court stated the reasons for petitioner’s conviction, thus: 2. 3)The Pasig Court below had no jurisdiction to try and decide the case
_______________ for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.6
2 Rollo, pp. 26-32.
Petitioner contends that he did not violate Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 because
3 Supra, note 1, at p. 186.
he told the officers of the complainant bank from the very beginning that he did
456 not have sufficient funds in the bank; he was merely enticed by Agustin Uy,
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED the bank’s managing director and comptroller, to obtain the instant loan where
Rigor vs. People he received only P200,000, while Uy took P300,000; and his check was partly
In the case at bar, accused admitted having issued Associated Bank Check used to collateralize an accommodation in favor of Uy in the amount of
No. 165476 in the amount of P500,000.00. The check was undated when P300,000.
issued. Records, however, show that it was issued on 16 November 1989 but The contention is without merit.
as it appear[s] now it is dated 16 February 1990. The probable reason must Petitioner is charged with violation of Section 1 of Batas Pambansa Bilang
be because upon the maturity of his loan on 16 December 1989, accused 22, thus:
asked for extension of two (2) months to pay the same. And the expiration of SECTION 1. Checks without sufficient funds.—Any person who makes or
that two (2) months period is 16 February 1990. Nevertheless, Exhibit “K” for draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the
the prosecution including its submarkings show that the highest outstanding time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee
amount in the current account of accused with the Associated Bank, Tarlac bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check
Branch for the month of November 1989, the month Rigor issued aforesaid is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or
check, is only about P40,000.00. Hence, Rigor has no sufficient deposit in the credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer,
bank to cover the amount of P500,000.00 when he issued Check No. 165476. without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment, shall be punished
Therefore, Rigor knowingly issued the same he having no sufficient funds in by imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year or
or credit with the drawee bank in violation of section 1 of [B.P.] Blg. 22. by a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check
The defense of the accused that the amount of loan he secured from the which fine shall in no case exceed Two hundred thousand pesos, or both such
Rural Bank of San Juan is only P200,000.00 is of no moment. The fact is he fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
admitted having issued Associated Bank Check No. 165476 in the amount of The elements of the offense are: (1) Making, drawing, and issuance of any
P500,000.00 and upon its deposit for encashment, the same was dishonored check to apply on account or for value; (2) knowledge of the maker, drawer, or
for reason account closed.4 issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit
Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the with the
trial court’s decision. The dispositive portion of the appellate court’s decision _______________
reads: 6 Id., at pp. 15, 19, 20.

“WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED with the modification that 458
the reference to lack of mitigating or aggravating circumstances should be 458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
deleted and disregarded.”5 Rigor vs. People
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3)
Petitioner raises the following: subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds

Page 3 of 6
or credit, or dishonor of the check for the same reason had not the drawer, Assuming arguendo that the payee had knowledge that he had insufficient
without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.7 funds at the time he issued the check, such knowledge by the payee is
As found by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, all the immaterial as deceit is not an essential element of the offense under Batas
aforementioned elements are present in this case. Pambansa Bilang 22.14 The gravamen of the offense is the issuance of a bad
The evidence shows that on November 16, 1989, petitioner applied 8 for a check; hence, malice and intent in the issuance thereof are inconsequential. 15
loan in the amount of P500,000 with the Rural Bank of San Juan and on the Moreover, the cited case of Magno v. Court of Appeals,16which resulted in
same day, he issued an undated Associated Bank Check No. 165476 9worth the acquittal of the accused therein, is inapplicable to petitioner as the facts of
P500,000 payable to Rural Bank of San Juan in connection with the loan, said case are different. In Magno, the bounced checks were issued to cover a
which check was later dated February 16, 1990.10 The check was thus issued warranty deposit in a lease contract, where the lessor-supplier was also the
to apply for value.11 This shows the presence of the first element of the offense. financier of the deposit.17 It was a modus operandi whereby the supplier of the
The presence of the second element of the offense is shown by petitioner’s goods is also able to sell or lease the same goods at the same time privately
admission12 that he knew of the insufficiency of his funds in the drawee bank financing
when he issued the check and he allegedly did not hide the fact from the _______________
officials of the Rural Bank of San Juan. 13 Supra, note 2, at pp. 35-36.

The Court of Appeals correctly ruled, thus: 14 Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 233 SCRA 301, 309 (1994).

xxx 15 Ibid.

“Knowledge involves a state of mind difficult to establish. We hold that 16 210 SCRA 471 (1992).

appellant’s admission of the insufficiency of his fund at the time he issued the 17 Ibasco v. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 449, 461 (1996).

check constitutes the very element of “knowledge” contemplated in Sec. 1 of 460

BP 22. The prima faciepresumption of 460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
_______________ Rigor vs. People
7 Vaca v. Court of Appeals, 298 SCRA 656, 661 (1998), citing Navarro v.
those in desperate need so they may be accommodated. 18The Court therein
Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 639, 643-644 (1994). held:
8 Exh. “A”, Records, p. 130.
To charge the petitioner for the refund of a “warranty deposit” which he did not
9 Exh. “D”, Records, p. 133.
withdraw as it was not his own account, it having remained with LS Finance,
10 TSN, November 17, 1993, pp. 3-14.
is to even make him pay an unjust “debt,” to say the least, since petitioner did
11 See Ngo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 155815, July 14,
not receive the amount in question. All the while, said amount was in the
2004, 434 SCRA 522. safekeeping of the financing company, which is managed, supervised and
12 Petition, Rollo, p. 16.
operated by the corporation officials and employees of LS Finance. Petitioner
459 did not even know that the checks he issued were turned over by Joey Gomez
VOL. 442, NOVEMBER 17, 2004 459 to Mrs. Teng, whose operation was kept from his knowledge on her instruction.
Rigor vs. People This fact alone evoke suspicion that the transaction is irregular and
knowledge required in Sec. 2, Id., does not apply because (a) the check was immoral per se, hence, she specifically requested Gomez not to divulge the
presented for payment only on May 25, 1990 or beyond the 90-day period, source of the “warrant deposit.”
which expired on May 16, 1990, counted from the maturity date of the check It is intriguing to realize that Mrs. Teng did not want the petitioner to know
on February 16, 1990 and (b) an actually admitted knowledge of a fact needs that it was she who “accommodated” petitioner’s request for Joey Gomez, to
no presumption. source out the needed funds for the “warranty deposit.” Thus it unfolds the kind
While it is true that if a check is presented beyond ninety (90) days from its of transaction that is shrouded with mystery, gimmickry and doubtful legality.
due date, there is no more presumption of knowledge by the drawer that at the It is in simple language, a scheme whereby Mrs. Teng as the supplier of the
time of issue his check has no sufficient funds, the presumption in this case is equipment in the name of her corporation, Mancor, would be able to “sell or
supplanted by appellant’s own admission that he did not hide the fact that he lease” its goods as in this case, and at the same time, privately financing those
had no sufficient funds for the check. In fact, it appears that when he who desperately need petty accommodations as this one. This modus
authorized RBSJ to date his check on February 16, 1990, his current account operandi has in so many instances victimized unsuspecting businessmen,
was already closed two weeks earlier, on February 2, 1990.13 who likewise need protection from the law, by availing of the deceptively called
Petitioner, however, argues that since the officers of the bank knew that he did “warranty deposit” not realizing that they also fall prey to leasing equipment
not have sufficient funds, he has not violated Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.
Page 4 of 6
under the guise of a lease purchase agreement when it is a scheme designed The notice of dishonor of a check may be sent to the drawer or maker by the
to skim off business clients.19 drawee bank, the holder of the check, or the offended party either by personal
This case, however, involves an ordinary loan transaction between petitioner delivery or by registered mail.23 The notice of dishonor to the maker of a check
and the Rural Bank of San Juan wherein petitioner issued the check certainly must be in writing.24
to be applied to the payment of his loan since the check and the loan have the In this case, prosecution witness Edmarcos Basangan testified that after
same value of P500,000. Whether petitioner agreed to give a portion of the petitioner’s check was dishonored, he and co-employee Carlos Garcia went to
proceeds of his loan to Agustin Uy, an officer of com- petitioner’s residence in Tarlac to inform him about it. Thereafter, petitioner
_______________ wrote a letter dated June 28, 1990 to Atty. Joselito Lim, RBSJ chairman of the
18 Ibid. Board of Directors, proposing a manner of paying the loan. The letter was
19 Supra, note 16, at pp. 477-478. referred to the bank manager who sent petitioner another demand
461 letter25 dated September 17, 1990 through registered mail.26 Said letter
VOL. 442, NOVEMBER 17, 2004 461 informed petitioner of the dishonor of his check for the reason of account
Rigor vs. People closed, and required him to settle his obligation, thus:
plainant bank, to finance Uy’s and his (petitioner) sister’s alleged “side- xxx
banking” activity, such agreement is immaterial to petitioner’s liability for September 17, 1990
issuing the dishonored check under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. Mr. Alfredo Rigor
Lozano v. Martinez20 states: Victoria, Tarlac
The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and Dear Mr. Rigor,
issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation Please be informed that the check dated February 16, 1990, that you issued
for payment. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes. purportedly for the payment of your loan, which has already become due and
The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The demandable in the sum of PESOS: Five Hundred Thousand Pesos Only
thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of (P500,000.00) was dishonored on February 16, 1990 (should be May 25,
worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Because of its deleterious 1990) for the reason Account Closed (AC).
effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by the law. The law We trust that you will take the necessary step for the early settlement of
punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an offense against your obligation to us.
public order. _______________
23 Sia v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 149695, April 28, 2004, 428
People v. Nitafan21 held that to require that the agreement surrounding the
issuance of checks be first looked into and thereafter exempt such issuance SCRA 206.
24 Ibid.
from the provisions of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 on the basis of such
25 Exh. “I”, Records, p. 139.
agreement or understanding would frustrate the very purpose for which the
26 Exh. “I-2”, Records, p. 140.
law was enacted.
Further, the presence of the third element of the offense is shown by the 463
fact that after the check was deposited for encashment, it was dishonored by VOL. 442, NOVEMBER 17, 2004 463
Associated Bank for reason of “closed account” as evidenced by its Check Rigor vs. People
Return Slip.22 Despite receipt of a notice of dishonor from complainant bank, Very truly yours,
petitioner failed to pay his obligation. MELQUECEDES DE GUZMAN
Petitioner next contends that he did not receive a notice of dishonor, the The transcript of records27 shows that petitioner admitted knowledge of the
absence of which precludes criminal prosecution. dishonor of his check through a demand letter sent to him. Hence, petitioner
The contention is likewise of no merit. cannot pretend that he did not receive a notice of dishonor of his check.
_______________ Lastly, petitioner contends that the Regional Trial Court of Pasig had no
20 146 SCRA 323, 338 (1986). jurisdiction over this case since no proof has been offered that his check was
21 215 SCRA 79, 84 (1992). issued, delivered, dishonored or that knowledge of insufficiency of funds
22 Exh. “G”, Records, p. 137. occurred in the Municipality of San Juan, Metro Manila.
462 The contention is untenable.
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Rigor vs. People
Page 5 of 6
 As regards venue of a criminal action, Section 15, paragraph (a), of Rule WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court
110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which reflects the old of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR No. 18855, is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against
rule,28 provides: petitioner.
Sec. 15. Place where action is to be instituted.— _______________
(a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried 30 Id., at pp. 415-416.

in the court of the municipality or territory where the offense was committed 31 Id., at p. 416.

or where any of its essential ingredients occurred. (Emphasis supplied.) 32 TSN, September 15, 1992, pp. 19-21.

Violations of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 are categorized as transitory or 33 TSN, November 10, 1992, p. 8.

continuing crimes.29 In such crimes, some acts material and essential to the 34 Supra, note 2, at pp. 41-43.

crimes and requisite to their consummation occur in one municipality or 465

territory and some in another, in which event, the court of either has juris- VOL. 442, NOVEMBER 17, 2004 465
_______________ Felix vs. National Labor Relations Commission
27 TSN, February 4, 1994, pp. 5-6.
SO ORDERED.
28 The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 110, Sec. 15. Place where
Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Quisumbing, Ynares-
action is to be instituted.— Santiago and Carpio, JJ., concur.
(a) Subject to existing laws, in all criminal prosecutions the action shall be Petition denied, assailed decision affirmed.
instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory wherein the Note.—What the law, B.P. Blg. 22, punishes is the issuance of a bouncing
offense was committed or any one of the essential ingredients thereof took check and not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions
place. relating to its issuance. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum
29 Lim v. Court of Appeals, 251 SCRA 408, 416 (1995).
prohibitum. (Wong vs. Court of Appeals, 351 SCRA 100 [2001])
464 ——o0o——
464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED © Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
Rigor vs. People
diction to try the cases, it being understood that the first court taking
cognizance of the case excludes the other.30Hence, a person charged with a
transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or territory where the
offense was in part committed.31
The evidence clearly shows that the undated check was issued and
delivered at the Rural Bank of San Juan, Metro Manila 32 on November 16,
1989, and subsequently the check was dated February 16, 1990 thereat. On
May 25, 1990, the check was deposited with PS Bank, San Juan Branch,
Metro Manila.33 Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled:
Violations of B.P. 22 are categorized as transitory or continuing crimes. A suit
on the check can be filed in any of the places where any of the elements of the
offense occurred, that is, where the check is drawn, issued, delivered or
dishonored. x x x
The information at bar effectively charges San Juan as the place of drawing
and issuing. The jurisdiction of courts in criminal cases is determined by the
allegations of the complaint or information. Although, the check was
dishonored by the drawee, Associated Bank, in its Tarlac Branch, appellant
has drawn, issued and delivered it at RBSJ, San Juan. The place of issue and
delivery was San Juan and knowledge, as an essential part of the offense, was
also overtly manifested in San Juan. There is no question that crimes
committed in November, 1989 in San Juan are triable by the RTC stationed in
Pasig. In short both allegation and proof in this case sufficiently vest jurisdiction
upon the RTC in Pasig City.34
Page 6 of 6