G.R. No. 144887 | Nov 17 2014 | Azcuna, J. Petitioners: Alfredo Rigor Respondents: People of the Philippines Rules of Court Rule 110 Sec 15
TC San Juan may try the case despite it being issued at Rural Bank San Juan, deposited at PSBank San Juan, but dishonored at Assoc Bank Tarlac.
Nov 16 1989 o Alfredo Rigor applied for a P500k commercial loan from Rural Bank (RB) San Juan on Nov 16 1989. Rigor signed a Promissory Note (PN) stating a 24% interest per year. The loan was approved by RB San Juan Manager de Guzman and Controller Agapito Uy. A cashiers check with P487k net proceeds of loan was issued to Rigor. Rigor endorsed and encashed the check with the RB San Juan teller Cruz who stamped the word “Paid”. Rigor issued an undated Associated Bank (AB) Tarlac Branch check in the amount of P500k payable to RB San Juan. The application, approval and receipt of proceeds were all in one day because Rigor is the kumpare of RB San Juan President and he is well-known to directors because they all come from Tarlac. Rigor failed to pay the loan upon maturity of the loan on Dec 16 1989. Rigor personally asked a 2 month extension but still failed to pay so asked for another 2 month extension. Rigor failed to pay and asked for a 30 day extension on Apr 16 1990 but was now denied by de Guzman. de Guzman sent a formal demand letter on Apr 25 1990. RB San Juan deposited the AB check with PSBank (PSB) San Juan on May 25 1990, but was returned because the account was closed. AB Tarlac Employee Pasion declared the account was closed and had at most P40k. Hence, the check was dishonored in Tarlac despite it being deposited in PSB San Juan and was formerly issued with RB San Juan.
Rigor denied the charges and claimed o Uy and Uy’s sister Agnes Angeles proposed to Rigor to secure a P500k loan from RB San Juan o P200k in Rigor’s name and P300k in Uy’s name where Angeles is to pay the unpaid loans of borrowers in their side banking activities o Uy told Rigor he can put up his 4-door Mercedes Benz as collateral for the P200k loan for it to be approved and the P300k will have no collateral o Rigor agreed and signed a bank loan application form, PN and chattel mortgage for his Benz o Uy gave Rigor 2 premiere bank checks for P100k each o Rigor issued an undated personal check for P500k o Check was deposited later in May but the check bounced o Rigor told Uy to get the Benz as payment of the P200k loan o Uy refused and said he wanted to be paid the whole amount of P500k Trial Court of Pasig found Rigor guilty of violation of Sec 1 BP 22 on Jul 8 1994. Rigor was sentenced to an imprisonment of 6 months and to pay P500k to RB San Juan. Rigor contends the Trial Court of Pasig had no jurisdiction over the case since there was no proof offered that his check was issued, delivered, dishonored or that knowledge of insufficiency of the funds occurred in San Juan, Manila.
W/N the Trial Court of Pasig had jurisdiction to try and decide case for violation of BP 22. –YES
Page 1 of 2
RULING & RATIO o o
o o o
Rule – a person charged with a transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or territory where the offense was in part committed Violations of BP 22 are categorized as transitory or continuing crimes because some acts material and essential to the crimes and requisite to their consummation occur in one municipality or territory and some in another. st Either court has jurisdiction to try cases given that the 1 court taking the case excludes other courts. Evidence showed the undated check was i o issued and delivered at RBSJ San Juan on Nov 16 1989 o subsequently dated Feb 16 1990 also at San Juan o deposited on May 25 1990 with PSBank San Juan but dishonored by Associated Bank San Juan is place of drawing and issuing whereas Tarlac was the place where it was dishonred Thus, the CA correctly ruled that a suit on the check can be filed in any of the places where any of the elements of offense occurred: Drawn, Issued, Delivered or Dishonored Hence, the offense is triable by the Trial Court of Pasig
DISPOSITION WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR No. 18855, is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.