G.R. No. 198270 , December 9, 2015
Armilyn Morillo, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines and Richard Natividad, Respondents

FACTS

Sometime in July 2003, respondent Richard Natividad and his partners purchased construction materials from petitioner Armilyn Morillo, owner of Amasea General Merchandize and Construction Supplies. They agreed that payments would be made via postdated checks. Petitioner delivered materials worth P500,054.00. After the last delivery, respondent paid P20,000.00 in cash and issued two postdated Metrobank checks (Pampanga branch) for P393,000.00 and P87,054.00. Upon maturity, these checks were dishonored. Petitioner demanded payment. Respondent then issued two replacement postdated Metrobank checks. Upon deposit at petitioner’s bank, Equitable PCI Bank in Makati City, these checks were dishonored for the reason “Account Closed.” Despite demands, respondent failed to pay. Petitioner filed a complaint. Two Informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22) were filed against respondent and a partner in Makati City. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati found respondent guilty. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MeTC decision. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the lower courts, dismissing the case without prejudice to refiling in the proper venue. The CA held that the checks were issued and delivered in Pampanga, drawn from a Metrobank branch in Pampanga, and only presented for payment and dishonored in Makati. Thus, the Makati court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the first element of the offense (making, drawing, and issuing a check) occurred in Pampanga.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the MeTC of Makati City lacked territorial jurisdiction over the B.P. 22 cases.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court reversed the CA decision and reinstated the MeTC and RTC decisions convicting respondent. The Court held that a violation of B.P. 22 is a transitory or continuing crime. Jurisdiction lies with any court whose territory encompasses any of the essential acts constituting the offense. The elements of B.P. 22 are: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or its dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment. In this case, while the checks were issued and delivered in Pampanga, they were presented for payment and dishonored in Makati City (at the collecting bank, Equitable PCI Bank, Makati Branch, where petitioner maintained her account). The dishonor, which is an essential element of the crime, occurred in Makati. Therefore, the MeTC of Makati City properly acquired territorial jurisdiction over the cases. The offense was committed partly in Makati, and venue was correctly laid therein.