People vs. Grospe 157 SCRA 154
FACTS:
Respondent-accused, Manuel Parulan, is an authorized
wholesale dealer of petitioner San Miguel Corporation in Bulacan.
He was charged before the RTC of Pampanga with Violation of
the Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Blg. 22) for having issued a check on 13 June
1983 for P86,071.20 in favor of SMC but which was dishonored for having been
drawn against “insufficient funds” and, in spite of repeated demands, for
having failed and refused to make good said check to the damage and prejudice
of SMC.
He was also was charged with Estafa under Article 315,
paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code in the same court.
The RTC dismissed the case on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction.
Petitioner challenges the dismissal of the two criminal
cases on the ground that they were issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack of jurisdiction.
The principal ground relied upon by Respondent Judge in
dismissing the criminal cases is that deceit and damage, the two essential
elements that make up the offenses involving dishonored checks, did not occur
within the territorial jurisdiction of his Court in Pampanga, but rather in
Bulacan where false assurances were given by Respondent-accused and where the
checks he had issued were dishonored. The People maintain, on the other hand,
that jurisdiction is properly vested in the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the case
RULING:
A person charged with a transitory crime may be validly
tried in any municipality or province where the offense was in part committed.
In transitory or continuing offenses in which some acts material and essential
to the crime and requisite to its consummation occur in one province and some
in another, the Court of either province has jurisdiction to try the case, it
being understood that the first Court taking cognizance of the Case will
exclude the others. However, if all the acts material and essential to the
crime and requisite of its consummation occurred in one municipality or
territory, the Court of that municipality or territory has the sole
jurisdiction to try the case.
Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check, may be a transitory
or continuing offense.
For while the subject check was issued in Guiguinto,
Bulacan, it was not completely drawn thereat, but in San Fernando, Pampanga,
where it was uttered and delivered. “What is of decisive importance is the
delivery thereof. The delivery of the instrument is the final act essential to
its consummation as an obligation.”
For although the check was received by the SMC Sales
Supervisor at Guiguinto, Bulacan, that was not the delivery in contemplation of
law to the payee, SMC. Said supervisor was not the person who could take the
check as a holder, that is, as a payee or indorsee thereof, with the intent to
transfer title thereto. The rule is that the issuance as well as the delivery
of the check must be to a person who takes it as a holder, which means “the
payee or indorsee of a bill or note, who is in possession of it, or the bearer,
thereof.” Thus, said representative had to forward the check to the SMC
Regional Office in San Fernando, Pampanga, which was delivered to the Finance
Officer thereat who, in turn, deposited it at the SMC depository bank in San
Fernando, Pampanga. The element of deceit, therefore, took place in San
Fernando, Pampanga, where the rubber check was legally issued and delivered so
that jurisdiction could properly be laid upon the Court in that locality.
Comments
Post a Comment