G.R. Nos. L-74053-54, January 20, 1988
People of the Philippines and San Miguel Corporation, petitioners, vs. Nathaniel M. Grospe, Presiding Judge, Branch 44, Regional Trial Court of Pampanga and Manuel Parulan, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Manuel Parulan, a wholesale dealer for San Miguel Corporation (SMC), was charged in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pampanga with Violation of B.P. Blg. 22 (Criminal Case No. 2800) and Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code (Criminal Case No. 2813). The charges stemmed from two checks issued to SMC in June 1983, which were dishonored for insufficient funds. The Informations specifically alleged the crimes were committed in San Fernando, Pampanga. After a joint trial, the respondent Judge, while convinced of the accused’s guilt based on the evidence, dismissed both cases for lack of jurisdiction.
The respondent Judge ruled that the essential elements of deceit and damage did not occur within Pampanga. He found that the checks were issued and delivered with false assurances in Guiguinto, Bulacan, and that the damage was inflicted in Santa Maria, Bulacan, where the drawee bank dishonored them. He deemed the deposit and subsequent debit from SMC’s account at a bank in San Fernando, Pampanga, as inconsequential for establishing venue.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga correctly dismissed the criminal cases for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the dismissal, and ordered the trial court to reassume jurisdiction and render judgment. The Court held that the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. On the matter of venue, the Court reiterated that for violations of B.P. Blg. 22 and estafa involving checks, the criminal action may be instituted in the place where the check was issued, delivered, dishonored, or where the drawer received notice of dishonor. Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the Information, which in this case specifically alleged commission in San Fernando, Pampanga. Therefore, the RTC of Pampanga had territorial jurisdiction.
The dismissal was correctable by certiorari as it was based on a jurisdictional error, not an adjudication on the merits. Consequently, setting aside the void order does not place the accused in double jeopardy. A dismissal based on a mistaken conclusion of lack of jurisdiction is null and void, meaning the proceedings were not lawfully terminated. Thus, no second proceeding exists to invoke double jeopardy. The trial court was ordered to proceed and decide the cases based on the evidence already presented.