G.R. No. 119000 July 28, 1997
ROSA UY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Rosa Uy was an accountant for Don Tim Shipping Company, owned by the husband of private complainant Consolacion Leong. After resigning, Rosa and Consolacion agreed to form a partnership to expand Rosa’s lumber business, with Consolacion contributing capital. Consolacion gave various sums totaling P500,000.00 without receipts due to mutual trust. A lumber store and warehouse were constructed in Bulacan, Bulacan, using these funds. The relationship soured when partnership documents were not processed, leading Consolacion to demand the return of her investment. The checks issued by Rosa for repayment were dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Consequently, Consolacion filed a complaint for estafa and violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law). An Information for estafa and several Informations for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 were filed and jointly tried in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 32. The RTC acquitted Rosa Uy of estafa but convicted her of violating B.P. Blg. 22. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto.

ISSUE

1. Whether the RTC of Manila acquired jurisdiction over the violations of B.P. Blg. 22.
2. Whether the checks had been issued on account or for value.

RULING

1. On jurisdiction: The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC of Manila did NOT acquire jurisdiction over the violations of B.P. Blg. 22. Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases requires that the offense or any of its essential ingredients be committed within the court’s territory. The elements of B.P. Blg. 22 are: (a) making, drawing, and issuing a check to apply to account or for value; (b) the maker knows at issuance of insufficient funds; and (c) the check is subsequently dishonored. The evidence showed: complainant was a resident of Makati; petitioner was a resident of Caloocan City; the business was in Malabon; the drawee bank was in Malabon; and the checks were deposited for collection in Makati. No proof was offered that the checks were issued, delivered, dishonored, or that knowledge of insufficiency of funds occurred in Manila. The crimes of estafa and violation of B.P. Blg. 22 are separate offenses with different elements; jurisdiction over the estafa case (where money was given in a Manila restaurant) did not confer jurisdiction over the B.P. Blg. 22 cases. The defense of lack of jurisdiction was timely raised in a memorandum before the RTC and in subsequent pleadings; it is not subject to waiver and can be raised at any stage.
2. On the second issue: The Supreme Court did not reach the merits of whether the checks were issued on account or for value, having resolved the case on the jurisdictional issue. The Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and the RTC of Manila concerning the convictions for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 (Crim. Cases Nos. 84-32335 to 84-32340) and dismissed said cases for lack of jurisdiction.