People vs. Grospe

April 27, 2018 | Author: Robin Sparkles | Category: Cheque, Fraud, Crimes, Crime & Justice, Certiorari
Share Embed Donate

Short Description

Criminal Procedure...


CASE: PEOPLE vs. GROSPE AUTHOR : [G.R. No. DATE] L-74053-54 L-74053-54 | Jan. 30, 1988 | 157 SCRA 154  NOTES: TOPIC: Jurisdiction and Venue PONENTE: J. Melencio-Herrera FACTS: Respondent-accused Manuel Manuel Parulan, is an authorized dealer of SMC. Parulan was charged o f 2 crimes:  1) BP 22 –  22 –  issuing  issuing a check for P 86, 071.20 in favor of SMC which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. 2) Estafa –  Estafa –  P11,  P11, 918.80 check in favor of SMC in payment of beer he purchased. Check was also refused. The two cases were tried jointly before the RTC of Pampanga. It was stated in the facts that the checks were issued   by the accused on various occasions at the Sales office off ice of SMC at Guiguinto, Guiguinto, Bulacan and which checks he handed to SMC Supervisor in the same municipality. Judge Grospe of the RTC of Pampanga dismissed the case because of lack of jurisdiction since the checks were  dishonored by the Planters Development Bank (Bulacan), the drawee bank. Judge Grospe held that the essential elements of estafa (deceit and damage) were com mitted in Bulacan, not in Pampanga since the checks were issued in Guiguinto, Bulacan and were delivered to SMC Supervisor who holds office in the same municipality and subsequently subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank at Sta. Maria, Bulacan. The people filed a Special Civil Action for certiorari seeking to set aside Judge Grospe’s decision, challenges the  dismissal of 2 criminal cases on the ground of grave abuse of discretion (Rule 65). Respondent-accused argued that the dismissal was an acquittal, not reviewable by certiorari.  ISSUE(S) : Did the RTC of Pampanga acquire acquire jurisdiction over over the two criminal cases? HELD: YES RATIO: Estafa and BP 22 are continuing crimes. However, it is to be noted that the two are different crimes with different elements. Deceit and damage are two essential elements of Estafa, but not in BP 22, the latter being mala prohibita.

In Estafa cases, although the check was received by the SMC Supervisor in Bulacan that was not the delivery contemplated  by law to the payee, SMC. Said supervisor was not the person who could take the check as a holder. Said representative had to forward the check to SMC Regional office in San Fernando, Pampanga which was delivered to the Finance officer thereat who deposited it at SMC depositary bank in Pampanga as well, where the check was legally issued and delivered. The delivery of the check is the f inal act essential to its consummation. With respect to BP 22 case, the offense punishes the act of making or drawing and issuance of bouncing check on which there was knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of the insufficiency of funds, which is an essential element of the offense, is by itself a continuing offense. With this, the R TC of Pampanga P ampanga acquired jurisdiction jurisdiction over the case. Jurisdiction or venue is determined by the allegations in the Information which is controlling. CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE : DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):

View more...


Copyright ©2017 KUPDF Inc.