Uy v. CA, GR No. 119000

Uy v.
CA, GR 119000, 28 July 1997
Doctrine: For jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases the offense should
have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients took place within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court. Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory
where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense allegedly
committed therein by the accused. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court over the
criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information.
FACTS:
Rosa Uy was employed as an accountant in Don Tim Shipping Company owned by the
husband of the complaining witness Consolacion Leong. On March 15, 1982, a few
months before she was to give birth, Rosa resigned and then helped her husband
manage their lumber business. The two later agreed to form a partnership with
Consolacion to contribute additional capital for the expansion of Rosa’s lumber business
and the latter as industrial partner. Various sums of money were claimed to have been
given however no receipt was ever issued.
Thereafter a lumber store with warehouse was constructed. Unfortunately, the

friendship between Consolacion and Rosa turned sour, resulting to Consolacion asking
for the return of her investment but the checks issued by Rosa were dishonored for
insufficiency of funds. This prompted Consolacion to file a complaint for estafa and for
violation of the Bouncing Checks Law before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
The prosecution tried to establish that petitioner Rosa Uy employed deceit in obtaining
the sums of money. The petitioner and her witnesses Fernando Abad and Antonio Sy
maintained that no misrepresentation was committed and that the funds were utilized to
construct the building in Bulacan. The petitioner did not deny the existence of the issued
checks but averred that these were issued to evidence the investment of complainant in
the proposed partnership between them.
The RTC rendered a decision acquitting the petitioner of estafa but convicted her of the
charges under B.P Blg. 22. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the
trial court.
Petitioner’s Arguments: The trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the offenses
under B.P. Blg. 22 and that assuming for the sake of argument that she raised the
matter of jurisdiction only upon appeal to respondent appellate court, still cannot be
estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the trial court. She maintains that the
evidence presented would only show that none of the essential elements of B.P. Blg. 22
occurred in Manila.
Respondent’s Arguments: The respondent argues that even if there is no showing of

any evidence that the essential ingredients took place or the offense was committed in
Manila, what is critical is the fact that the court acquired jurisdiction over the estafa case
because the same is the principal or main case and that the cases for violations of
Bouncing Checks Law are merely incidental to the estafa case.
ISSUE/S:
(1) Whether or not the RTC of Manila acquired jurisdiction over the violations of the
Bouncing Checks Law;
RULING:
The Court disagrees with respondent. The crimes of estafa and violation of the
Bouncing Checks Law are two (2) different offenses having different elements, and for a
court to acquire jurisdiction each of the essential ingredients of each crime has to be
satisfied.
In the crime of estafa, deceit and damage are essential elements of the offense and
have to be established with satisfactory proof to warrant conviction. For violation of the
Bouncing Checks Law, on the other hand, the elements of deceit and damage are
neither essential nor required. Rather, the elements of B.P. Blg. 22 are (a) the making,
drawing and issuance of any check to apply to account or for value; (b) the maker,
drawer or issuer knows at the time of issuance that he does not have sufficient funds in
or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its
presentment; and (c) the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had
not the drawer, without valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.
Hence, it is incorrect for respondent to conclude that inasmuch as the RTC of Manila
acquired jurisdiction over the estafa case then it also acquired jurisdiction over the
violations of B.P. Blg. 22. The crime of estafa and the violation of B.P. Blg. 22 have to
be treated as separate offenses and therefore the essential ingredients of each offense
have to be satisfied.
In this regard, the records clearly indicate that business dealing were conducted in a
restaurant in Manila, hence, the acquisition of jurisdiction by the lower court over the
estafa case. However, the violation of B.P. Blg. 22 shows no evidence that jurisdiction
has been acquired, as there is no proof that the checks were issued, delivered,
dishonored or knowledge of insufficiency of funds occurred in Manila, which are
essential elements necessary for the Manila Court to acquire jurisdiction over the
offense.
It was further noted by the court that knowledge by the maker or drawer of the fact that
he has no sufficient funds to cover the check or of having sufficient funds is
simultaneous to the issuance of the instrument. The Court find no iota of proof on the
records that at the time of issue, petitioner or complainant was in Manila. As such, there
would be no basis in upholding the jurisdiction of the trial court over the offense.
Regarding the respondent’s contention that it took some five (5) years of trial before
petitioner raised the issue of jurisdiction, the Court held that the petitioner timely
questioned the jurisdiction of the court in a memorandum before the RTF and thereafter
in succeeding pleadings. The Court held that even if a party fails to file a motion to
quash, he may still question the jurisdiction of the court later on. Moreover, these
objections may be raised or considered moto propio by the court at any stage of the
proceedings or an appeal.
Furthermore, the respondent’s reliance on the case of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy for the
petitioner to be estopped, the Court find that the such case is not in point. The
Sibonghanoy case is an exception to the general rule that the lack of jurisdiction of a
court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. This is an
exceptional case because of the presence of laches.
However, the circumstance of the present case is very different from Tijam v.
Sibonghanoy. No judgment has yet been rendered by the trial court in this case. As
soon as the accused discovered the jurisdictional defect, she did not fail or neglect to
file the appropriate motion to dismiss. Hence, the court held that the ruling in Tijam v.
Sibonghanoy does not control the present controversy. Instead, the general rule that the
question of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings must
apply. The petitioner is therefore not estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the
trial court.

Uy v. CA, GR No. 119000

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Uy v. CA, GR No. 119000

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Uy v.

CA, GR 119000, 28 July 1997

Thereafter a lumber store with warehouse was constructed. Unfortunately, the

Respondent’s Arguments: The respondent argues that even if there is no showing of

You might also like