CASE DIGEST: Lim v. Court of Appeals

 

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.