GR L 76974; (November, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-76974 November 18, 1988
BENITO LIM, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE RODOLFO D. RODRIGO, Regional Trial Court, Branch VII, First Judicial Region (Baguio City), La Trinidad, Benguet, SILVESTRE H. BELLO III, Deputy Minister of Justice, CITY FISCAL OF BAGUIO and KO HU, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Benito Lim filed a criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) against private respondent Ko Hu. The five postdated checks, aggregating P200,000.00, were issued by Ko Hu in Manila and handed there to petitioner’s brother, Vicente Lim, for delivery to Benito Lim in Baguio City. The checks were subsequently dishonored upon presentment in Baguio for being drawn against a closed account. An Information was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City.
Ko Hu moved for the withdrawal of the Information, arguing improper venue, claiming the checks were delivered in Manila. The City Fiscal recommended withdrawal, a recommendation upheld by the Deputy Minister of Justice. Respondent Judge Rodolfo D. Rodrigo granted the motion to withdraw the Information, prompting petitioner to file this certiorari petition.
ISSUE
The sole issue is whether venue for the prosecution of the violation of B.P. Blg. 22 properly lies in Baguio City.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that venue was properly laid in Baguio City. The Court applied the doctrine established in People v. Yabut, which holds that the venue for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 lies either where the check is executed and delivered, or where it is dishonored. Delivery, the final act essential to consummate the obligation, is deemed to occur at the place where the check is received by the payee or holder.
The Court rejected the contention that delivery to Vicente Lim in Manila constituted delivery to the petitioner. Vicente Lim was neither the payee nor an indorsee of the checks. He could not be considered an agent of the petitioner for receiving the checks, as his specific instruction was to retrieve stock certificates, not to accept checks as payment. The Court found him to be a mere messenger or conduit. Consequently, delivery was completed only upon receipt by petitioner Benito Lim in Baguio City, thereby fixing venue there.
Furthermore, the Court cited People v. Manzanilla, reiterating that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the Information. The Information alleged the offense was committed in Baguio City, which is controlling. The element of “knowledge” of insufficiency of funds is a continuing eventuality, and the dishonor occurred in Baguio. Thus, the RTC of Baguio City has jurisdiction. The assailed Order was set aside and the Information reinstated for trial.