ARMILYN MORILLO, Petitioner
RICHARD NATIVIDAD , Respondents
GR No. 198270
777 SCRA 207
TOPICS
- RULE 45
- BOUNCING CHECKS LAW
- TRANSITORY CRIME
- ROLE OF OSG IN CRIMINAL CASES
- DOUBLE JEOPARDY
- ACQUITTAL VS. DISMISSAL OF CASE
JURISPRUDENCE CITED
- Rigor v. People
- Nieva, Jr. v. Court of Appeals
FACTS OF THE CASE
Respondent Natividad and business partners purchased construction materials from Armilyn Morillo, herein petitioner to be used in their project undertaking inside the Subic Freeport Zone.
The parties agreed that twenty percent (20%) of the purchases shall be paid within seven (7) days after the first delivery and the remaining eighty percent (80%) to be paid within thirty-five (35) days after the last delivery , all of which shall be via postdated checks.
The respondent paid ₱20,000.00 in cash and issued two (2) post-dated checks, drawn from Metrobank, Pampanga branch, in the amounts of ₱393,000.00 and ₱87,054.00. However, when the petitioner tried to deposit the checks in her savings account at Equitable PCI Bank, San Lorenzo, Makati City, they were dishonored by the drawee bank.
Petitioner delivered construction materials worth P500,054 to respondent's construction site. Respondent paid ₱20,000 in cash and issued two post-dated checks, which were dishonored upon deposit. This happened twice, despite assurances from respondent. Petitioner made several demands for payment but received none, so she filed a complaint with the City Prosecution Office in Makati City.
The Assistant City Prosecutor recommended that respondent and his partners be charged with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, and for violating Batas Pambansa No. 22 (BP 22). The case was docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 337902-03. On September 3, 2008, the MeTC issued a Joint Decision, finding respondent guilty of violating BP 22.
Richard Natividad was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating BP 22. However, his partners, were ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt.
The respondent appealed the MeTC's decision to the RTC, arguing that the MeTC had no jurisdiction over the case since the checks were issued, drawn, and delivered in Subic, not Makati City. Additionally, the respondent claimed that the proceedings should be declared null and void because there was no appearance by the public prosecutor or a proper delegation of authority during the retaking of the petitioner's testimony.
Natividad elevated his case to the RTC.
The RTC affirmed the MeTC ruling that the private prosecutor's authority to present a witness in the absence of the public prosecutor during a proceeding was not an issue, and that the jurisdiction of the case was not improper since a violation of BP 22 is a transitory offense . The appeal of the accused, Natividad, was dismissed and the appealed decision was affirmed in full.
However, The Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts' decision and dismissed the case without prejudice to its refiling in the correct venue. According to the CA, the checks were issued, drawn, and delivered in Pampanga, and all the essential elements of the offense occurred there.
Private complainant filed the case in Makati City based on the erroneous assumption that since she deposited the checks and was informed of their dishonor at her bank in Makati City, the case could be filed there. However, the act of depositing the check is not an essential element of BP 22, and knowledge of the dishonor by the payee is not an element of the offense. Therefore, none of the elements of the offense occurred in Makati City, and the venue of the case was improperly laid.
Petitioner, aggrieved of the CA's ruling, came to the Supreme Court invoking the following argument:
The petitioner aggrieved of the CA's ruling, raised her case to the Supreme Court invoking the argument that the Court of Appeals made a grave error in ruling that the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City lacked jurisdiction over the case, despite clear evidence that the offense was committed within its jurisdiction. The petitioner argues that since the dishonored checks were deposited in Makati City, the MeTC of Makati City had jurisdiction over the case, citing the ruling in Nieva, Jr. v. Court of Appeals.The petitioner maintains that the appellate court erred in its ruling and that the Nieva doctrine recognizing the jurisdiction of the court of the place where the check was deposited and/or presented for encashment belies the claim that none of the essential elements of the crime of violation of BP 22 occurred in Makati City.
The petitioner further contended that all the elements of violation of BP 22 were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution was able to establish that the respondent issued the checks in question through documentary evidence. These checks were issued in exchange for construction supplies and materials that the petitioner had delivered to the accused, demonstrating that they were issued for value.
The petitioner argues that the second and third elements of the violation of BP 22 were clearly established, as it was shown that the respondent had knowledge of the insufficiency of funds in the drawee bank and that the checks were dishonored. The prosecution presented evidence that the checks were presented within the required time period and a demand letter was personally delivered to the respondent. Therefore, the respondent cannot deny that he knew about the insufficient funds in his account, which led to the dishonor of the checks.
Petitioner also argues that the OSG's citing of Rigor v. People's case is untenable. Thus, the applicable doctrine to be applied in this case is the Nieva ruling which recognizes the jurisdiction of the court of the place where the check was deposited and/or presented for encashment.
(In Rigor v. People, it ruled that the place where the check was issued, delivered, and dishonored is the proper venue.)
ISSUE OF THE CASE
- Whether or not the ruling of the CA that the MeTC has no jurisdiction to try the case is correct.
- Whether or not the Nieva ruling is applicable in this case and not the Rigor ruling.
- Whether or not the non-participation of the OSG, in this case, is a fatal error that would result in the dismissal of the case
- Whether or not double jeopardy is applicable in this case on the part of the respondent.
RULING
1. As stated in previous rulings, it is irrefutable that the court where a check was presented or deposited holds the power to adjudicate cases concerning violations of BP 22. Hence, even though the check in question was issued, drawn, and delivered in Pampanga , the Makati MeTC retains jurisdiction over the case since it is a well-established fact that the check was deposited and presented for encashment at the Makati Branch of Equitable PC IBank.
Therefore, the MeTC of Makati rightfully exercised its jurisdiction over the instant case and made a sound decision within its lawful authority. The MeTC did not lose jurisdiction over the case simply because the check was issued in another location. The place of issuance of the check is not the decisive factor in determining which court holds jurisdiction over a case involving violations of BP 22.
The fact that the check was presented and deposited in Makati is crucial in establishing the MeTC's authority to hear the case. The court correctly acknowledged this fact and acted within its limits when it heard the case and delivered its verdict. In conclusion, the MeTC of Makati was well within its jurisdiction when it presided over the instant case and rendered its decision.
2. The Rigor case involves a violation of BP 22, which pertains to bouncing checks. The case focused on the question of jurisdiction for actions involving violations of BP 22. The prosecution argued that the place where the check was issued, delivered, and dishonored, not where it was deposited, is the proper venue for BP 22 cases. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that violations of BP 22 are categorized as transitory or continuing crimes and can be tried in any municipality or territory where any of the essential acts material to the offense occurred. The Nieva ruling, which the petitioner cited, is more relevant to the case at hand.The Nieva case involved a post-dated check that was deposited in a different location than where it was issued, and the court ruled that the place of deposit is the proper venue for BP 22 cases.
3. The Supreme Court has ruled that the absence of the Office of the Solicitor General's (OSG) participation in the case at hand should not be a hindrance to the petitioner's legal standing to file a petition. The Court cited Narciso v. Sta. Romana-Cruz, which recognized the ends of substantial justice in giving due course to a petition filed before it by a private offended party. While the rule is that only the Solicitor General may bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People or the State in criminal proceedings pending in this Court and the Court of Appeals, the Court found that in the interest of substantial justice, it must give due course to the instant petition and rule on its merits.
The Court believes that to dismiss the case on procedural grounds would cause a miscarriage of justice. The petitioner had already fulfilled her end of the agreement by giving the respondent construction materials amounting to half a million pesos, yet she has not been paid for them. The appellate court dismissed her action for the incorrect ground of wrong venue, without providing any legal or jurisprudential basis. To require the petitioner to start from the very beginning and refile her complaint before the same court which already had jurisdiction in the first place would create a hazardous precedent and open loopholes in the criminal justice system.
Thus, the Court finds that in the interest of substantial justice, it must give due course to the instant petition and rule on its merits, even in the absence of the OSG's participation. The Court cannot turn a blind eye to meritorious grounds to overlook strict procedural matters, as rules of procedure are meant to be tools to facilitate the fair and orderly conduct of proceedings, and strict adherence thereto must not get in the way of achieving substantial justice.
4. There is no double jeopardy in this case. A judgment of acquittal was not granted but the appellate court dismissed the case on the ground that the MeTC lacked jurisdiction over the offense charged. Dismissal is different from an acquittal, as a dismissal does not decide the case on the merits or whether the defendant is guilty or not. A dismissal only terminates the proceedings for various reasons such as lack of jurisdiction or an insufficient complaint or information. Therefore, the prosecution can still file another case against the accused for the same offense before a court of competent jurisdiction. A judgment of acquittal, on the other hand, is always based on the merits and is final and executory.A judgment of acquittal may be assailed through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,