Manuel Lim and Rosita Lim, petitioners vs CA and people of the Philippines, respondents. GR No. 107898 December 19, 1995
Issues:
Whether or not the RTC of Malabon has jurisdiction
over the case
Facts:
Spouses Manuel Lim and Rosita Lim were charged before the
RTC of Malabon with estafa. The informations alleged that the spouses,
conspiring together, purchased goods from Linton Commercial Company and with
deceit issued 7 Solidbank Checks simultaneously with the delivery as payment
therefor. When presented to the drawee bank the checks were dishonored due to
insufficiency of funds. Despite repeated notice and demand the Lim spouses
failed and refused to pay the checks or the value of the goods.
On the same basis of the same checks, 7 counts of BP 22 were
also filed against the spouses. Manuel Lim admitted having issued the 7 checks
but denied that his company had insufficient funds to cover the amount of the
checks. He presented the bank ledger showing a balance of 65,752.75 php. Also,
he claimed that he ordered Solidbank to stop payment because the supplies
delivered by Linton were not in accordance with the specifications of the
purchase orders. The RTC of Malabon found the spouses guilty of the cases (estafa
and BP 22) filed against them.
The spouses appealed to the CA. On appeal, the accused
assailed the decision as they imputed error to the trial court as follows: (a)
the Regional Trial Court of Malabon had no jurisdiction over the cases because
the offenses charged are committed outside its territory; (b) they could not be
held liable for estafa because the seven (7) checks were issued by them several
weeks after the deliveries of the goods; and, (c) neither could they be held
liable for violating B.P. Blg. 22 as they ordered payment of the checks to be
stopped because the goods delivered were not those specified by them, besides
they had sufficient funds to pay the checks.
The CA then rendered a decision acquitting the spouses in
their case of estafa on the ground that indeed the checks were not made in
payment of an obligation contracted at the time of their issuance but affirming
the RTC’s ruling on the BP 22. Aggrieved, the spouses elevated the case to the
Supreme Court
In the case at bench petitioners maintain that the
prosecution failed to prove that any of the essential elements of the crime
punishable under B.P. Blg. 22 was committed within the jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Court of Malabon. They claim that what was proved was that all the
elements of the offense were committed in Kalookan City. The checks were issued
at their place of business, received by a collector of LINTON, and dishonored
by the drawee bank, all in Kalookan City. In fine, considering that the checks
were all issued, delivered, and dishonored in Kalookan City, the trial court of
Malabon exceeded its jurisdiction when it tried the case and rendered judgment
thereon.
Ruling: Petition denied. Judgement Affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi:
B.P. 22 is a transitory crime and may be validly tried in
any municipality or territory where the offense was in part committed.
In determining proper venue in these cases, the following
acts material and essential to each crime and requisite to its consummation
must be considered: (a) the seven (7) checks were issued to LINTON at its place
of business in Balut, Navotas; (b) they were delivered to LINTON at the same
place; (c) they were dishonored in Kalookan City; and, (d) petitioners had
knowledge of the insufficiency of their funds in SOLIDBANK at the time the
checks were issued. Since there is no dispute that the checks were dishonored
in Kaloocan City, it is no longer necessary to discuss where the checks were
dishonored.
Under sec. 191 if the NIL, the term “issue” means the first
delivery of the instrument complete in form to a person who takes it as a
holder. On the other hand, the term “holder: refers to the payee or indorsee of
a bill or note who is in possession of it. In People vs. Yabit this court
explained, the place where the bills were written, signed or dated does not
necessarily fix or determine the place where they were executed. 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. An undelivered bill or note is inoperative.
Until delivery, the contract is revocable. Delivery of the check signifies
transfer of possession, whether actual or constructive from one person to
another with intent to transfer title.
Comments
Post a Comment