GR 233174; (January, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 233174 January 23, 2019
RUEL FRANCIS M. CABRAL, Petitioner, vs. CHRIS S. BRACAMONTE, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Ruel Francis M. Cabral filed a complaint for estafa against respondent Chris S. Bracamonte before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City. The Information alleged that on September 15, 2009, in Parañaque City, Bracamonte defrauded Cabral by issuing a postdated check for ₱12,677,950.15, representing it to be good and covered by sufficient funds, when in fact it was not. The check was later dishonored. Cabral’s complaint affidavit further alleged that prior negotiations persuading him to sell his corporate shares occurred in a Parañaque City warehouse.
After arraignment and the prosecution’s presentation of evidence, Bracamonte moved to quash the Information, arguing improper venue. He contended that the check was issued, delivered, and dishonored in Makati City, where the Memorandum of Agreement was signed, thus all essential elements of estafa occurred there. The RTC denied the motion, ruling that the allegations in the Information—specifically that deceit occurred in Parañaque—were sufficient to confer jurisdiction.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that the RTC of Parañaque City lacked jurisdiction over the criminal case for estafa due to improper venue.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the Information for lack of jurisdiction. The ruling is grounded on the principle that jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined by the place where the offense or any of its essential ingredients was committed. For estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code, the deceit and the damage are material ingredients. The deceit is deemed committed at the place where the false pretenses were made and the worthless check was issued and delivered, while the damage occurs where the check was dishonored.
The evidence presented during trial conclusively established that the check was issued, delivered, and dishonored in Makati City. The allegation in the Information that the offense occurred in Parañaque City was contradicted by the evidence. Jurisdiction cannot be based on allegations in the Information alone when trial evidence proves the offense was committed elsewhere. The place of prior negotiations in Parañaque is not the decisive act completing the estafa; the delivery of the worthless check in Makati City is. Furthermore, the objection to jurisdiction can be raised at any stage and is not subject to waiver or laches. Since all elements of the crime transpired in Makati City, the Parañaque RTC had no jurisdiction. The dismissal of the Information was proper.