GR 22760; (November, 1971) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-22760 November 29, 1971
JOSE T. GALVEZ, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioner, Jose T. Galvez, was charged with estafa before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasay City Branch. The prosecution alleged that in April 1959, Galvez induced Feliciana Camara to deliver a P2,000 check in Pasay City by falsely representing he would use the money to purchase backpay certificates to settle the tax obligations on her newly acquired car. Galvez cashed the check in Manila but failed to pay the taxes, converting the money for his personal use. After a protracted trial spanning over two years, the prosecution rested its case on February 6, 1962. The defense requested a two-week postponement to prepare its case, but the trial court denied the motion, citing its prior order for day-to-day hearings. Upon the defense’s failure to present evidence the following day, the court rendered a judgment of conviction on February 8, 1962. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, prompting this appeal on certiorari.
ISSUE
The issues for resolution are: (1) whether the trial court in Pasay City had territorial jurisdiction over the offense, and (2) whether the trial court deprived Galvez of his right to a day in court by denying his motion for postponement.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding both the jurisdiction of the trial court and the denial of the motion for postponement. On the jurisdictional issue, the Court ruled that the essential element of the estafa charged was the fraudulent acquisition of the P2,000 through false pretenses. The information clearly alleged that the false representations were made and the check was received in Pasay City. The subsequent cashing of the check in Manila was merely a continuation of the transaction initiated by the deceit in Pasay City. Under the Rules of Court, a criminal action may be instituted in the place where any of the essential elements of the offense occurred. Since the deceit and receipt of the check, which are integral parts of the crime, transpired within Pasay City, the trial court properly exercised territorial jurisdiction.
Regarding the denial of the motion for postponement, the Court found no arbitrariness or abuse of discretion. The trial had already been prolonged for over two years with several postponements granted to both parties. The case involved a straightforward estafa transaction, and the defense had ample time to prepare its case during the lengthy trial period. The defense failed to request subpoenas for witnesses on the dates set for the presentation of its evidence. Furthermore, Galvez’s subsequent affidavit detailing his defense indicated he intended to testify on matters within his personal knowledge, yet he chose not to take the stand when his turn came. This belied any claim of good faith in seeking a further delay. The Court emphasized that the grant or denial of a continuance rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and interference is warranted only in cases of clear arbitrariness, which was not present here. Consequently, the conviction was sustained.