Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Brodeth Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Rey Mark Ricablanca
    41 views1 page
    The petitioners were charged with issuing two bad checks totaling over P263,000 to Vill Integrated Transport Corporation. The Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila found the petitioners guilty. However, the only evidence that the checks were issued in Manila was the complainant's allegation, which was hearsay as the complainant was not directly involved in the transaction. As violations of the B.P. Blg. 22 law can be filed in any place an element of the offense occurred, and there was no proof that any element took place in Manila, the MeTC did not have jurisdiction over the case. The Court of Appeals decision upholding the MeTC verdict was reversed and the criminal cases dismissed without prejudice.

    Original Description:

    For info

    Original Title

    Brodeth vs People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The petitioners were charged with issuing two bad checks totaling over P263,000 to Vill Integrated Transport Corporation. The Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila found the petitioners guilty. However, the only evidence that the checks were issued in Manila was the complainant's allegation, which was hearsay as the complainant was not directly involved in the transaction. As violations of the B.P. Blg. 22 law can be filed in any place an element of the offense occurred, and there was no proof that any element took place in Manila, the MeTC did not have jurisdiction over the case. The Court of Appeals decision upholding the MeTC verdict was reversed and the criminal cases dismissed without prejudice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    41 views1 page

    Brodeth Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Rey Mark Ricablanca
    The petitioners were charged with issuing two bad checks totaling over P263,000 to Vill Integrated Transport Corporation. The Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila found the petitioners guilty. However, the only evidence that the checks were issued in Manila was the complainant's allegation, which was hearsay as the complainant was not directly involved in the transaction. As violations of the B.P. Blg. 22 law can be filed in any place an element of the offense occurred, and there was no proof that any element took place in Manila, the MeTC did not have jurisdiction over the case. The Court of Appeals decision upholding the MeTC verdict was reversed and the criminal cases dismissed without prejudice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    RAFFY BRODETH and ROLAN B.

    ONAL, Petitioners
    vs.
    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and ABRAHAM G. VILLEGAS, Respondents

    FACTS:
    On August 16, 2001, the petitioners were charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court,
    Branch 30A Manila (MeTC), with violation of B.P. Blg. 22. The respondent claimed that 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 (respondent), 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 d o u b t f o r t h e o f f e n s e c h a r g e d o n J u l y 2 , 2 0 0 8 . T h e R T C
    a n d C A a f f i r m e d t h e d e c i s i o n o f M e T C . 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. On the other hand, 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 VITC since Villegas was not
    directly involved in dealing with customers and was not a signatory to Contract between the
    petitioner and VITC

    ISSUE:
    WON the MeTC has jurisdiction over the case

    RULING:
    No, the MeTC has no jurisdiction over the case. Violations of B.P. Blg. 22 are categorized as
    transitory or continuing crimes. A Continuing crime (transitory crime or moving crime) is one where some
    acts material and essential to the crime and requisite in their consummation occur in one municipality or
    territory, while some occur in another. Thus, violations of BP. Blg. 22 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
    On the case at hand, the only factual link to the territorial jurisdiction of the Me TC 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.
    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.

    FALLO:
    WHEREFORE, the present petition is GRANTED. The 17 May 2011 Decision and the 20 July 2011
    Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 33104 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE on the
    ground of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 30, Manila. Criminal Case
    Nos. 371104-CR & 371105-CR are DISMISSED without prejudice.

    You might also like