284 Uy v. CA

ROSA UY v. CA AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 119000 | July 28, 1997 | Bellosillo, J.  SUMMARY Uy was employed as an accountant in Don Tim Shipping Company owned by the husband of complaining witness Consolacion Leong. When Rosa resigned from work, her friendly realtion with Consolacion continued and they later agreed to form a partnership for the expansion of Rosa's lumber business and the latter as industrial partner.. When the friendship collapsed, Consolacion demanded the return of her investment. Rosa gave her checks, but they were dishonored because of insufficiency of fund. Consolacion filed file a complaint for estafa and for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law before the RTC of Manila. The trial court acquitted petitioner of estafa but convicted her of the charges under B.P. Bldg. 22. On appeal, respondent appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court. The SC held that RTC-Manila acquired jurisdiction over both estafa and BP Blg. 22 cases. PROVISIONS Rule 117, Sec. 3, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure The accused may move to quash the complaint or information on any of the following grounds: . . . (b) that the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charge or over the person of the accused

 

ISSUE/RATIO WHETHER THE RTC-MANILA ACQUIRED JURISDICTION VIOLATIONS OF THE BOUNCING CHECKS LAW - YES 

Rule 117, Sec. 8 The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, either because he did not le a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of the grounds of a motion to quash, except the grounds of . . . lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged . . . as provided for in paragraph . . . (b) . . . of Section 3 of this Rule DOCTRINE Even if a party fails to le a motion to quash, he may still question the jurisdiction of the court later on. Moreover, these objections may be raised or considered motu propio by the court at any stage of the proceedings or an appeal FACTS:  Rosa Uy was employed as an accountant in Don Tim Shipping Company owned by the husband of complaining witness Consolacion Leong. When Rosa resigned from work, her friendly relation with Consolacion continued and they later agreed to form a partnership for the expansion of Rosa's lumber business and the latter as industrial partner. Various sums of money amounting to P500,000.00 were

claimed to have been given by Consolacion for the business. No receipt was issued. A warehouse for the lumber business was funded by Consolacion. But when the friendship collapsed, Consolacion demanded the return of her investment. Rosa gave her checks, but they were dishonored because of insufficiency of fund. Consolacion filed file a complaint for estafa and for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law before the RTC of Manila. The trial court acquitted petitioner of estafa but convicted her of the charges under B.P. Bldg. 22. On appeal, respondent appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court.



OVER

THE

Petitioner contends: o RTC never acquired jurisdiction over the offenses under B.P. Blg. 22 o Assuming that she raised the matter of jurisdiction only upon appeal to respondent appellate court, still she cannot be estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC o None of the essential elements constitutive of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 was shown to have been committed in the City of Manila o The Evidence presented established that (a) complainant was a resident of Makati; (b) petitioner was a resident of Caloocan City; (c) the place of business of the alleged partnership was located in Malabon; (d) the drawee bank was located in Malabon; and, (e) the checks were all deposited for collection in Makati  None of the essential elements of BP Blg. 22 occurred in Manila SolGen: o If there is no showing of any evidence that the essential ingredients took place or the offense was committed in Manila, what is critical is the fact that the court acquired jurisdiction over the estafa case because the same is the principal or main case and that the cases for violations of Bouncing Checks Law are merely incidental to the estafa case.















For jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases the offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense allegedly committed therein by the accused. Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense allegedly committed outside of that limited territory Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. 8 And once it is so shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case. However, if the evidence adduced during the trial show that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction Estafa and violation of the Bouncing Checks Law are two (2) different offenses having different elements and, necessarily, for a court to acquire jurisdiction each of the essential ingredients of each crime has to be satisfied it is incorrect for respondent People to conclude that inasmuch as the RTC-Manila acquired jurisdiction over the estafa case then it also acquired jurisdiction over the violations of B.P. Blg. 22. The crime of estafa and the violation of B.P. Blg. 22 have to be treated as separate offenses and therefore the essential ingredients of each offense have to be satisfied. Business dealings were conducted in a restaurant in Manila where sums of money were given to petitioner; hence, the acquisition of jurisdiction by the lower court over the estafa case. The various charges for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 however are on a different plain. There is no scintilla of evidence to show that jurisdiction over the violation of B.P. Blg. 22 had been acquired. On the contrary, all that the evidence shows is that complainant is a resident of Makati; that petitioner is a resident of Caloocan City; that the principal place of business of the alleged partnership is located in Malabon; that the drawee bank is likewise located in Malabon and that all the subject checks were deposited for collection in Makati. Upon the contention of respondent that knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of the check of the insufficiency of his funds is by itself a continuing eventuality whether the accused be within one territory or another, the same is still without merit It may be true that B.P. Blg. 22 is a transitory or continuing offense and such being the case the theory is that a person indicted with a transitory offense may be validly tried in any jurisdiction













where the offense was in part committed. We note however that knowledge by the maker or drawer of the fact that he has no sufficient funds to cover the check or of having sufficient funds is simultaneous to the issuance of the instrument. o We again find no iota of proof on the records that at the time of issue, petitioner or complainant was in Manila. As such, there would be no basis in upholding the jurisdiction of the trial court over the offense. Respondent: o Doctrine of jurisdiction by estoppel. o it took some 5 years of trial before petitioner raised the issue of jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 117, Secs. 3 and 8, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, petitioner timely questioned the jurisdiction of the court in a memorandum before the RTC and thereafter in succeeding pleadings o Even if a party fails to le a motion to quash, he may still question the jurisdiction of the court later on. Moreover, these objections may be raised or considered motu propio by the court at any stage of the proceedings or an appeal Assuming arguendo that there was a belated attempt to question the jurisdiction of the court and hence, on the basis of the Tijam v. Sibonghanoy case, the petitioner should be estopped. We nonetheless find the jurisprudence of the Sibanghoy case not in point. Calilim v. Ramirez: the ruling in the Sibonghanoy is an exception to the general rule that the lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal; that such case is exceptional because of the presence of laches. o the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of the action is a matter of law and may not be conferred by consent or agreement of the parties. The lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal In Sibonghanoy, the defense of lack of jurisdiction of the court that rendered the questioned ruling was held to be barred by laches. It was ruled that the lack of jurisdiction having been raised for the first time in a motion to dismiss led almost 15 years after the questioned ruling had been rendered, such a plea may no longer be raised for being barred by laches. The circumstances of the present case are very different from Sibonghanoy No judgment has yet been rendered by the trial court in this case. As a matter of fact, as soon as the accused



discovered the jurisdictional defect, she did not fail or neglect to file the appropriate motion to dismiss. The finding the pivotal element of laches to be absent. The general rule that the question of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings must apply. Petitioner is therefore not estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the trial court

WHEREFORE, finding the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Br. 32, to have no jurisdiction over Crim. Case Nos. 84-32335 to 8432340, inclusive, the assailed decision of respondent Court of Appeals arming the decision of the trial court dated 24 September 1991 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, without prejudice to the ling of appropriate charges against petitioner with the court of competent jurisdiction when warranted.