Brodeth v. People Digest

Brodeth v. People, G.R. No.
197849, November 29, 2017
FACTS:
On August 16, 2001, there were two charges against the petitioners
involving dishonored checks for reason “Drawn against insufficient funds.” On
August 31 and September 5 in 1999, the accused drew and issued two (2) checks
from Metrobank to Vill Integrated Transport Corporation (VITC), represented by
Abraham Villegas, in the amount of P140,000.00 and P123,600.00 respectively.
Despite receipt of notice of such dishonors, said accused failed to pay VITC the
amount of the check or make arrangements for full payment of the same within
five banking days after receiving said notice.
The petitioners argued they had arranged with a certain Cristina Villegas that
the checks will be paid in cash but they have no receipts to prove their claims. The
Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable
doubt for the offense charged on July 2, 2008, and on the 29 th, the petitioners
timely filed a notice of appeal, and the case was forwarded to the Regional Trial
Court for further proceedings. Petitioner’s appeal was however denied by the
appellate court. It emphasized that the gravamen of the offense charges is the
issuance of a bouncing check regardless of the purpose why it was issued; and that
the fact that the checks were drawn by a corporation cannot exculpate petitions
from the charge against them. Further, the CA maintained that the MeTC Manila
had jurisdiction to try the case because the complaint affidavit categorically stated
that the checks were issued in Manila.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila had jurisdiction over
the case
HELD:
NO. Petitioners argue that the MeTC had no jurisdiction because Villegas'
allegation that the subject checks were issued in Manila was unsubstantiated. They
explain that the lower courts should not have relied on this allegation for being
hearsay considering that Villegas had no firsthand knowledge about the transaction
between Vill Integrated and L&S Resources.
The petitioners are correct. A careful review of the rulings of the lower
courts would show that the only piece of evidence they considered connecting the
alleged violation of B.P. Big. 22 within the territorial jurisdiction of the MeTC is
the affidavit-complaint of Villegas. In this affidavit, the allegation that the subject
checks were issued in Manila was mentioned only once even though the
circumstances behind the issuance of the checks were referred to a couple of times.
Moreover, the phrase "in Manila" only appeared in the ninth paragraph of Villegas'
affidavit where the elements of the offense were already being summarized.
Looking at the affidavit itself already casts some doubt as to where the subject
checks were really issued. Villegas could not have testified or alleged in his
affidavit that the checks were issued in Manila because he was not privy to the
contractual negotiations with L&S Resources nor was he present when petitioners
issued the checks. Furthermore, petitioners claimed in defense that the checks were
issued as a guarantee for the payments. As admitted by Vill Integrated's liason
officer, their company collects payments from its clients in their respective offices.
Considering that L&S Resources' principal place of business is in Makati City, it
would be out of the ordinary course of business operations for petitioners to go all
the way to Manila just to issue the checks.
Morillo v. People29 is instructive as to where violations of B.P. Blg. 22
should be filed and tried: “It is well-settled that violations of B.P. [Blg.] 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 crime's 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.”
From the foregoing, we can deduce that a criminal complaint for violation of
B.P. Blg. 22 may be filed and tried either at the place where the check was issued,
drawn, delivered, or deposited. In the present case, however, evidence on record is
missing at any of these material places. Again, the only factual link to the
territorial jurisdiction of the MeTC is the allegation that the subject checks were
issued in Manila. In criminal cases, venue or where at least one of the elements of
the crime or offense was committed must be proven and not just alleged.
Otherwise, a mere allegation is not proof and could not justify sentencing a man to
jail or holding him criminally liable. To stress, an allegation is not evidence and
could not be made equivalent to proof. All said, since the prosecution failed to
prove that the subject checks were issued in Manila nor was any evidence shown
that these were either drawn, delivered, or deposited in Manila, the MeTC has no
factual basis for its territorial jurisdiction.
Thus, the Supreme Court granted the petition and dismissed the instant
cases.

Brodeth v. People Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brodeth v. People Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brodeth v. People, G.R. No.

197849, November 29, 2017

You might also like