THIRD DIVISION crime may be validly tried in any municipality or territory where the

offense was in part committed.

G.R. No. 198270, December 09, 2015 Same; Same; Same; Jurisdiction; The court of the place where the check
was deposited or presented for encashment can be vested with jurisdiction
ARMILYN MORILLO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE to try cases involving violations of Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 22.There is
PHILIPPINES AND RICHARD NATIVIDAD, Respondent. no denying, therefore, that the court of the place where the check was
deposited or presented for encashment can be vested with jurisdiction to
G.R. No. 198270. December 9, 2015.* try cases involving violations of BP 22. Thus, the fact that the check subject
of the instant case was drawn, issued, and delivered in Pampanga does not
strip off the Makati MeTC of its jurisdiction over the instant case for it is
ARMILYN MORILLO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
undisputed that the subject check was deposited and presented for
PHILIPPINES and RICHARD NATIVIDAD, respondents. encashment at the Makati Branch of Equitable PCIBank. The MeTC of
Criminal Law; Bouncing Checks Law; Transitory or Continuing Makati, therefore, correctly took cognizance of the instant case and
Crimes; It is well-settled that violations of Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 22 rendered its decision in the proper exercise of its jurisdiction.
cases are categorized as transitory or continuing crimes, meaning that some Attorneys; Office of the Solicitor General; Section 35(1), Chapter 12,
acts material and essential thereto and requisite in their consummation Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code provides that the Office
occur in one municipality or territory, while some occur in another.It is of the Solicitor General (OSG) shall represent the Government of the
well-settled that violations of BP 22 cases are categorized as transitory or Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents
continuing crimes, meaning that some acts material and essential thereto in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services
and requisite in their of lawyers.Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987
Administrative Code provides that the OSG shall represent the
_______________ Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its
officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter
* THIRD DIVISION.
requiring the services of lawyers. Specifically, it shall represent the
Government in all criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court and the
Court of Appeals. Thus, as a general rule, if a criminal case is dismissed by
208 the trial court or if there is an acquittal, the appeal on the criminal aspect
208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED of the case must be instituted by the Solicitor General on behalf of the
Morillo vs. People State. There have been instances, however, where the Court permitted an
offended party to file an appeal without the intervention of the OSG, such
consummation occur in one municipality or territory, while some occur
as when the offended party questions the civil aspect of a decision of a lower
in another. In such cases, the court wherein any of the crimes essential and
court, when there is denial of due process of law to the prosecution and the
material acts have been committed maintains jurisdiction to try the case;
State or its agents refuse to act on the case
it being understood that the first court taking cognizance of the same
excludes the other. Thus, a person charged with a continuing or transitory
 filed by the accused, or for violation of the right of the accused to a speedy
209 trial, the dismissal of a criminal case against the accused will not result in
VOL. 777, DECEMBER 9, 2015 209 his acquittal.
Morillo vs. People Same; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Petition for Review on Certiorari; In a
to the prejudice of the State and the private offended party, when there petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the parties raise only
is grave error committed by the judge, or when the interest of substantial questions of law because the Supreme Court (SC), in its
justice so requires.
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Judgment of Acquittal; A
judgment of acquittal may be assailed through a petition for certiorari 210
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court showing that the lower court, in 210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
acquitting the accused, committed not merely reversible errors of judgment,
but also exercised grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of Morillo vs. People
jurisdiction, or a denial of due process, thereby rendering the assailed exercise of its power of review, is not a trier of facts.Petitioners resort
judgment null and void; This is because a judgment of acquittal is to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court cannot be struck down as improper. In a
immediately final and executory, and the prosecution is barred from petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the parties raise only
appealing lest the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy be questions of law because the Court, in its exercise of its power of review, is
violated.A judgment of acquittal may be assailed through a petition not a trier of facts. There is a question of law when the doubt or difference
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court showing that the lower arises as to what the law is on certain state of facts and which does not call
court, in acquitting the accused, committed not merely reversible errors of for an existence of the probative value of the evidence presented by the
judgment, but also exercised grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack parties-litigants. In De Vera v. Spouses Santiago, 759 SCRA 431 (2015), the
or excess of jurisdiction, or a denial of due process, thereby rendering the Court categorically ruled that the issue of whether the appellate court erred
assailed judgment null and void. If there is grave abuse of discretion, in annulling the RTC Decision for lack of jurisdiction is a question of law,
granting the aggrieved partys prayer is not tantamount to putting the to wit: Undeniably, the issue whether the CA erred in annulling the
accused in double jeopardy, in violation of the general rule that the RTC Decision for lack of jurisdiction is a question of law. The
prosecution cannot appeal or bring error proceedings from a judgment resolution of such issue rests solely on what the law [B.P. Blg. 129,
rendered in favor of the defendant in a criminal case. This is because a as amended] provides on the given set of circumstances as alleged
judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory, and the in petitioners complaint for reconveyance of ownership and
prosecution is barred from appealing lest the constitutional prohibition possession with damages.
against double jeopardy be violated. Same; Criminal Procedure; Jurisdiction; In criminal cases, the
Same; Same; Same; The appellate courts dismissal of the case is not jurisdiction of the court is determined by the averments of the complaint or
an acquittal of respondent. Basic is the rule that a dismissal of a case is Information, in relation to the law prevailing at the time of the filing of the
different from an acquittal of the accused therein.The Court stresses that complaint or Information, and the penalty provided by law for the crime
the appellate courts dismissal of the case is not an acquittal of respondent. charged at the time of its commission.The instant petition was filed
Basic is the rule that a dismissal of a case is different from an acquittal of within the bounds of our procedural rules for the issue herein rests solely
the accused therein. Except in a dismissal based on a Demurrer to Evidence on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances insofar as the
commission of the crime of BP 22 is concerned. In criminal cases, the expense on the erroneous ground of lack of jurisdiction would create a
jurisdiction of the court is determined by the averments of the complaint or hazardous precedent and open loopholes in our criminal justice system.
Information, in relation to the law prevailing at the time of the filing of the The Court finds that in the interest of substantial justice, it must give due
complaint or Information, and the penalty provided by law for the crime course to the instant petition and consequently rule on the merits of the
charged at the time of its commission. Thus, when a case involves a proper same. The circumstances surrounding this case left petitioner with no other
interpretation of the rules and jurisprudence with respect to the suitable recourse but to appeal the case herself. Not only was there an
jurisdiction of courts to entertain complaints filed therewith, it deals with absence of support from the OSG, said government office also took a
a question of law that can be properly brought to this Court under Rule 45. position in contrast to the rights and interests of petitioner. Moreover, as
discussed above, the arguments which ran counter to petitioners interest
as well as the grounds used to support them were simply inapplicable to
the issue at hand. In fact, these erroneous contentions were adopted by the
211 appellate court in their entirety, dismissing the instant case in a manner
VOL. 777, DECEMBER 9, 2015 211 not in accord with law and applicable jurisprudence. For the Court, now, to
Morillo vs. People apply procedural rules in their strict and literal sense by similarly
Same; Same; Judgments; Dismissal of Actions; Double Jeopardy; Since dismissing, as the CA had, petitioners action poses serious consequences
the dismissal of the instant case cannot be considered as an acquittal of tantamount to a miscar-
respondent herein, he cannot likewise claim that his constitutional right to
protection against double jeopardy will be violated.Since the dismissal of
the instant case cannot be considered as an acquittal of respondent herein,
he cannot likewise claim that his constitutional right to protection against 212
double jeopardy will be violated. In Paulin v. Hon. Gimenez, 217 SCRA 386 212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
(1993), the Court held: Jurisprudence on double jeopardy as well as the Morillo vs. People
exceptions thereto which finds application to the case at bar has been laid riage of justice. To rule that the accused can postpone criminal
down by this Court as follows: . . . However, an appeal by the prosecution and delay the administration of justice at petitioners expense
prosecution from the order of dismissal (of the criminal case) by on the erroneous ground of lack of jurisdiction would create a hazardous
the trial court shall not constitute double jeopardy if (1) the precedent and open loopholes in our criminal justice system.
dismissal is made upon motion, or with the express consent of the Same; Same; Dismissal of Actions; Procedural Rules and
defendant; (2) the dismissal is not an acquittal or based upon Technicalities; Dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned
consideration of the evidence or of the merits of the case; and (3) upon where the policy of the court is to encourage hearings of appeals on
the question to be passed upon by the appellate court is purely their merits and the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very
legal so that should the dismissal be found incorrect, the case rigid, technical sense; rules of procedure are used only to help secure, not
would have to be remanded to the court of origin for further override substantial justice.When there exists meritorious grounds to
proceedings, to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant. overlook strict procedural matters, the Court cannot turn a blind eye
Same; Same; Jurisdiction; To rule that the accused can postpone thereto lest the administration of justice be derailed by an overly stringent
criminal prosecution and delay the administration of justice at petitioners application of the rules. Rules of procedure are meant to be tools to
facilitate a fair and orderly conduct of proceedings. Strict adherence thereto
must not get in the way of achieving substantial justice. As long as their Sometime in July 2003, respondent Richard Natividad, Milo Malong and Bing
purpose is sufficiently met and no violation of due process and fair play Nanquil, introducing themselves as contractors doing business in Pampanga
takes place, the rules should be liberally construed. Dismissal of appeals City under the name and style of RB Custodio Construction, purchased
purely on technical grounds is frowned upon where the policy of the court construction materials for their project inside the Subic Freeport Zone from
is to encourage hearings of appeals on their merits and the rules of petitioner Armilyn Morillo, owner of Amasea General Merchandize and
procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense; rules of Construction Supplies. The parties agreed that twenty percent (20%) of the
procedure are used only to help secure, not override substantial justice. It purchases shall be paid within seven (7) days after the first delivery and the
is a far better and more prudent course of action for the court to excuse a remaining eighty percent (80%) to be paid within thirty-five (35) days after the
last delivery, all of which shall be via postdated checks.6
technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case on appeal to
attain the ends of justice rather than dispose of the case on technicality and
Pursuant to the agreement, petitioner delivered construction materials
cause a grave injustice to the parties, giving a false impression of speedy
amounting to a total of P500,054.00 at the construction site where
disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage respondent and his partners were undertaking their project. After the last
of justice. delivery, respondent paid P20,000.00 in cash and issued two (2) post-dated
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of checks, drawn from Metrobank, Pampanga branch, in the amounts of
P393,000.00 and P87,054.00. Upon maturity, petitioner attempted to deposit
the Court of Appeals. the checks in her savings account at Equitable PCI Bank, San Lorenzo,
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Makati City. They were, however, dishonored by the drawee bank.
Fortun, Narvasa and Salazar for petitioner. Immediately thereafter, petitioner communicated the dishonor to respondent
Sheryl C. Santos-Centeno for private respondent. and his partners and demanded for payment. Again, respondent issued two
(2) post-dated Metrobank checks and assured petitioner that they will be
DECISION honored upon maturity. Upon deposit in her savings account at Equitable PCI
Bank, Makati Branch, the checks were once again dishonored for the reason
PERALTA, J.: that the account from which they were drawn was already a closed account.
Consequently, petitioner made several demands from respondent and his
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the partners, but to no avail, prompting her to file a complaint with the City
Rules of Court seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision1 dated January Prosecution Office, Makati City.7 Thus, on August 12, 2004, two (2)
18, 2011 and Resolution2 dated August 9, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) Informations were filed against respondent and Milo Malong, the accusatory
in CA-G.R. CR No. 32723 which reversed and set aside the Decision3 dated portions of which read:
February 23, 2009 and Order4 dated July 13, 2009, of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. 08-1876-77, which, in turn, affirmed the Criminal Case No. 337902
Joint Decision5 dated September 3, 2008 of the Metropolitan Trial Court
(MeTC) in Criminal Case Nos. 337902-03. That on or about the 20th day of October 2003, or prior thereto, in the City of
Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this
The antecedent facts are as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously make out, draw and issue to AMASEA GENERAL unlawfully and feloniously make out, draw and issue to AMASEA GENERAL
MERCHANDIZE AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPLIES herein represented by MERCHANDIZE AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPLIES herein represented by
ARMILYN MORILLO to apply on account or for value the check described ARMILYN MORILLO to apply on account or for value the check described
below: below:

Check Check
: 2960203217 : 2960203218
No. No.

Drawn Drawn
: Metrobank : Metrobank
Against Against

In the : In the :
amount Php434,430.00 amount Php13,032.00

Postdated : October 20, Postdated : October 20,

/ Dated 2003 / Dated 2003

Payable : AMASEA GENERAL MERCHANDIZE AND Payable : AMASEA GENERAL MERCHANDIZE AND
to CONSTRUCTION SUPPLIES to CONSTRUCTION SUPPLIES
said accused well knowing that at the time of issue thereof, said accused did said accused well knowing that at the time of issue thereof, said accused did
not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment in not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment in
full of the face amount of such check upon its presentment which check when full of the face amount of such check upon its presentment which check when
presented for payment within ninety (90) days from the date thereof, was presented for payment within ninety (90) days from the date thereof, was
subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason "Account subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason "Account
Closed" and despite receipt of notice of such dishonor, the said accused Closed" and despite receipt of notice of such dishonor, the said accused
failed lo pay said payee the face amount of said check or to make failed to pay said payee the face amount of said check or to make
arrangement for full payment thereof within five (5) banking days after arrangement for full payment thereof within five (5) banking days alter
receiving notice. receiving notice.

CONTRARY TO LAW. CONTRARY TO LAW.8ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

On September 15, 2004, the Assistant City Prosecutor issued a Resolution
Criminal Case No. 337903 recommending that respondent and his partners be charged in court with the
crime of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code
That on or about the 20th day of October 2003, or prior thereto, in the City of as well as for Violation of Batas Pambansa No. 22 (BP 22), which was later
Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 337902-03.
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there wilfully,
On September 3, 2008, the MeTC rendered its Joint Decision, finding that the On February 23, 2009, the RTC affirmed the MeTC ruling in the following
prosecution had proven all the elements of violation of BP 22 as against wise:
respondent, the dispositive portion of which reads: Since accused Natividad failed to raise before the court [a quo] the issue of
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in Criminal Cases Nos. 337902-03 authority of the private prosecutor to present witness Morillo in the absence of
finding the accused, RICHARD NATIVIDAD, GUILTY beyond reasonable the public prosecutor during the March 14, 2008 proceeding, and only did so
doubt of the offense of Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and is sentenced after obtaining an adverse judgment, it would be an injustice if all the
to pay a fine equivalent to Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php200,000.00), proceedings had in the case would be set aside.
for Check No. 2960203217 and Thirteen Thousand Thirty-Two Pesos for
Check No. 2960203218 or a total penalty of Two Hundred Thousand Thirteen The second issue raised on appeal also holds no ground. A violation of BP 22
Thousand Thirty Two Pesos (Php213,032.00), with subsidiary imprisonment is a continuing or transitory offense, which is oft-repeated in our
in case of insolvency. However, accused MILO MALONG, is ACQUITTED on jurisprudence. Under this doctrine, jurisdiction may be had in several places
the ground of reasonable doubt. Both accused Malong and Natividad are where one of the acts material to the crime occurred.
ordered to jointly pay the private complainant the total sum of Four Hundred
Forty-Seven Thousand Four Hundred Sixty-Two Pesos (Php447,462.00) Accused Natividnd postulates that since the checks were presented
which are the face value of the two (2) checks issued, subject of these cases, suid dishonored in Makati City, which is not the place where it was
with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum and three percent (3%) issued and delivered, the court [a quo] lacks jurisdiction. This argument
penalty per month as stipulated in the invoices, reckoned from the date of is, at best, specious. The fact remains that the bank where it was
receipt of the demand on February 28, 2004, until the amount is fully paid, presented lor payment is in Makati City. These checks passed through
plus the costs of suit. this bank for clearance, confirmation, and or validation processes.
Moreover, the eventual dishonour indeed took place or was completed
All other claims are DISMISSED for lack of evidence. at the end of the collecting bank in Makati City, where the private
complainant maintains her account over which the court [a quo] has
SO ORDERED.9ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary jurisdiction.
Respondent appealed the decision of the MeTC to the RTC arguing that the
MeTC of Makati City had no jurisdiction over the case. He asserted that since WHEREFORE, finding no merit on accused-appellant Natividad's appeal, the
the subject checks were issued, drawn, and delivered to petitioner in Subic, same is hereby dismissed. Accordingly, the appealed decision of the court [a
the venue of the action was improperly laid for none of the elements of the quo] is hereby AFFIRMED in full.
offense actually transpired in Makati City. Respondent also pointed out that
during the retaking of petitioner's testimony on March 14, 2008, the records of SO ORDERED.11ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
the case did not show that the public prosecutor manifested his presence in On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals, in its January 18, 2011 Decision,
court and that he delegated the prosecution of the case to the private reversed the lower courts' rulings and dismissed the case without prejudice to
prosecutor. Thus, since there was no appearance for the public prosecutor, its refiling in the proper venue, the pertinent portions of said Decision state:
nor was there a proper delegation of authority, the proceedings should be In this case, records will reveal that the first element of the offense happened
declared null and void.10 in Pampanga. It was indisputably established that the subject checks were
issued to private complainant at petitioner's office in Pampanga. Said checks
were drawn from petitioner's account in Metrobank, Pampanga branch.
The second element of the offense or the knowledge of dishonor of the THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT
checks by the maker also transpired in Pampanga. After private complainant THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY DID NOT HAVE
was informed of the dishonor of the checks, she immediately proceeded to JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE DESPITE A CLEAR SHOWING THAT
petitioner's office in Pampanga, personally informed him and his companions THE OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF SAID
of the dishonor of the checks and tendered a demand letter for the payment COURT.13ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
of the construction materials. Petitioner maintains that the MeTC of Makati City, the place where the
dishonored checks were deposited, had jurisdiction over the instant case. In
Finally, the third element or dishonor of the checks by the drawee bank support of her contention, petitioner cites the ruling in Nieva, Jr. v. Court of
also happened in Pampanga. Upon maturity of the subject checks, Appeals,14 wherein it was held that since the check drawn in violation of BP
private complainant deposited the same in her savings account at 22 was deposited and presented for encashment with the Angeles City
Equitable PCI Bank, Makati Branch. Subsequently, she was informed by Branch of the Bank of the Philippine Islands, the RTC of Pam.pa.nga clearly
the latter bank that the subject checks were dishonored by the drawee had jurisdiction over the crime of which accused therein was charged.15 Thus,
bank, Metrobank, Pampanga branch. petitioner asserts that the appellate court erred in ruling that the Makati MeTC
did not have jurisdiction to try the instant case. That none of the essential
Clearly, all the essential elements of the offense happened in elements of the crime of violation of BP 22 occurred in the City of Makati is
Pampanga. Consequently, the case can only be filed in said place. belied by the Nieva doctrine recognizing the jurisdiction of the court of the
Unfortunately, private complainant filed the case in Makati City, under place where the check was deposited and/or presented for encashment.
the erroneous assumption that since she deposited the subject checks
in Equitable PCI Bank, Makati City, and was informed of lite dishonor of Petitioner went on lo state that all the elements of violation of BP 22 were
the checks by the same bank, the case may be filed in Makati City. duly proven beyond reasonable doubt. First, the prosecution sufficiently
However, as correctly argued by the OSG, the act of depositing the established that the respondent issued the subject checks as shown by the
check is not an essential clement of BP 22. Likewise, the fact that documentary evidence submitted. They were issued for value, as payment for
private complainant was informed of the dishonor of the checks at her the construction supplies and materials which petitioner delivered to the
bank in Makuti City did not vest the MeTC, Makati City with jurisdiction accused.
to take cognizance of the case. To reiterate, a transitory crime can only
be tiled in any of the places where its constitutive elements actually As to the second and third elements, petitioner posits that it was clearly
transpired. And, knowledge of the payee of the dishonor of the checks shown that respondent had knowledge of the insufficiency of funds in or
is not an element of BP 22. The law speaks only of the subsequent credit with the drawee bank, which subsequently dishonored the subject
dishonor of the checks by the drawee bank and the knowledge of the checks. Section 2 of BP 22 provides that "the dishonor of a check when
fact of dishonor by the maker. Consequently, none of the elements of presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check shall be prima
the offense can be considered to have transpired in Makati City. Thus, facie evidence of knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit unless such
the venue of the instant case was improperly maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes
laid.12ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within five (5)
Aggrieved, petitioner filed the instant action invoking the following argument: banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the
I. drawee." In this case, petitioner states that the prosecution was able to
sufficiently show that the subject checks were presented within the time continuing crimes, meaning that some acts material and essential thereto and
period required by law. In fact, written demand relaying the fact that the requisite in their consummation occur in one municipality or territory, while
drawee bank dishonored the subject checks was even personally delivered some occur in another. In such cases, the court wherein any of the crime's
by petitioner to respondent as evidenced by the demand letter signed by essential and material acts have been committed maintains jurisdiction to try
respondent. Thus, respondent cannot deny that he had knowledge of the the case; it being understood that the first court taking cognizance of the
insufficiency of funds in his account with the drawee bank and that the same excludes the other. Thus, a person charged with a continuing or
subject checks were subsequently dishonored for the reason that the account transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or territory where the
from which they were drawn was already a closed account. offense was in part committed.18

For its part, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the State, The OSG, relying on our ruling in Rigor v. People, concluded that "the
is in line with the appellate court's and respondent's stance that the MeTC Supreme Court regarded the place of deposit and the place of dishonor as
had no jurisdiction over the instant case. According to the OSG, the act of distinct from one another and considered the place where the check was
depositing the check is not an essential element of the offense under the issued, delivered and dishonored, and not where the check was deposited,
Bouncing Checks Law. Citing the ruling in Rigor v. People,16 the OSG posited as the proper venue for the filing of a B.P. Blg. 22 case." The Court, however,
that the place of deposit and the place of dishonor are distinct from each cannot sustain such conclusion.
other and that the place where the check was issued, delivered, and
dishonored is the proper venue, not the place where the check was In said case, She accused therein obtained a loan from the Rural Bank of
deposited, viz.: San Juan, Metro Manila, and in payment thereof, he issued a check drawn
The evidence clearly shows that the undated check was issued and delivered against Associated Bank of Tarlac. Thereafter, Rural Bank deposited the
at the Rural Bank of San Juan, Metro Manila. x x x The check was deposited check at PS Bank, San Juan, but the same was returned for the reason that it
with PS Bank, San Juan Branch, Metro Manila. x x x The information at bar had been dishonored by Associated Bank of Tarlac. When all other efforts to
effectively charges San Juan as the place of drawing and issuing. The demand the repayment of the loan proved futile, Rural Bank filed an action
jurisdiction of courts in criminal cases is determined by the allegations of the against the accused for violation of BP 22 at the RTC of Pasig City, wherein
complaint or information. Although the check was dishonored by the drawee, crimes committed in. San Juan are triable. The accused, however, contends
Associated Bank, in its Tarlac Branch, appellant has drawn, issued and that the RTC of Pasig had no jurisdiction thereon since no proof had been
delivered it at RBSJ, San Juan. The place of issue and delivery was San offered to show that his check was issued, delivered, dishonored or that
Juan and knowledge, as an essential part of the offense, was also overtly knowledge of hmrfficiency of funds occurred in the Municipality of San Juan.
manifested in San Juan. There is no question that crimes committed in San The Court, however, disagreed and held that while the check was dishonored
Juan are triable by the RTC stationed in Pasig.17ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary by the drawee. Associated Bank, in its Tarlac Branch, evidence clearly
On the basis of the pronouncement in Rigor, the OSG thus claimed that the showed that the accused had drawn, issued and delivered it at Rural Bank,
MeTC of Makati City did not have jurisdiction over the instant case for none of San Juan, viz.:
the essential elements of violation of BP 22 occurred therein. Lastly, positioner contends thai the Regional Trial Court of Pasig h;ui no
jurisdiction over this case since no proofhas been offered that his check was
The contention is untenable. issued, delivered, dishonored or that knowledge of insufficiency of funds
occurred in the Municipality of San Juan, Metro Manila.
It is well settled that violations of BP 22 cases are categorized as transitory or
The contention is untenable. jurisdiction over violations of BP 22. In the absence, thereiore, of any ground,
jurisprudential or otherwise, to sustain the OSG's arguments, the Court
x x x x. cannot take cognizance of a doctrine that is simply inapplicable to the issue
at hand.
The evidence clearly shows that the undated check was issued and delivered
at the Rural Bank of San Juan, Metro Manila on November 16, 1989, and In contrast, the ruling in Nieva, Jr. v. Court of Appeals20 cited by petitioner is
subsequently the check was dated February 16, 1990 thereat. On May 25, more squarely on point with the instant case. In Nieva, the accused delivered
1990, the check was deposited with PS Bank, San Juan Branch, Metro to Ramon Joven a post-dated check drawn against the Commercial Bank of
Manila. Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled: Manila as payment for Joven's dump truck. Said check was deposited in the
Violations of B.P. 22 are categorized as transitory or continuing crimes. A suit Angeles City Branch of the Bank of Philippine Islands, joven was advised,
on the check can be filed in any of the places where any of the elements of however, that the Commercial Bank of Manila returned the check for the
the offense occurred, that is, where the check is drawn, issued, delivered or reason that the account against which the check was drawn is a "closed
dishonored. x x x account." Consequently, the accused was charged with violation of BP 22
before the RTC of Pampanga. On the contention of the accused that said
The information at bar effectively charges San Jisars as the place of court had no jurisdiction to try the case, the Court categorically ruled:
drawing and issuing. The jurisdiction of courts in criminal cases is As to petitioner's contention that the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga
determined by the allegations of the complaint or information. has no jurisdiction to try the cases charged herein as none of the
Although, the check was dishonored by the drawee, Associated Baisk, essential elements thereof took place in Pampanga, suffice it to say that
sit its Tariac Branch, appellant has drawn, issued and delivered it at such contention has no basis. The evidence discloses that the check
RBSJ, San Juan. The place of issue airul delivery was San Juan and was deposited and/or presented for encashment with the Angeles City
knowledge, as an essential part of she offense, was also overtly Branch of the Bank of the Philippine Islands. This fact clearly confers
manifested in San Juan. There is no question that crimes committed in jurisdiction upon the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga over the crimes
November, 1989 in San Juan arc triable by the RTC stationed in Pasig. of which petitioner is charged. It must be noted that violations of B.P. Blg.
In short both allegation and proof in this case sufficiently vest 22 are categorized as transitory or continuing crimes and so is the crime of
jurisdiction upon the RTC in Pasig City.19ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary estafa. The rule is that a person charged with a transitory crime may be
The bone of contention in Rigor, therefore, was whether the prosecution had validly tried in any municipality or territory where the offense was in part
offered sufficient proof that the check drawn in violation of BP 22 was issued, committed.21ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
delivered, dishonored or that lcnowledge of insufficiency of funds occurred in In fact, in the more recent Yalong v. People,22 wherein the modes of appeal
the Municipality of San Juan, thereby vesting jurisdiction upon the RTC of and rules of procedure were the issues at hand, the Court similarly inferred:
Pasig City. Nowhere in the cited case, however, was it held, cither expressly Besides, even discounting the above-discussed considerations, Yalong's
or impliedly, that the place where the check was deposited is not the proper appeal still remains dismissible on the ground that, inter alia, the MTCC had
venue for actions involving violations of BP 22, it is true thai the Court, properly acquired jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 45414. It is welksedled
in Rigor, acknowledged the feet that the check was issued and delivered at that violation of BP 22 cases is categorized as transitory or continuing crimes,
the Rural Bank of San Juan, while the same was deposited wilts the PS Bank which means that the acts material and essential thereto occur in one
of San Juan. But such differentiation cannot be taken as basis sufficient municipality or territory, while some occur in another. Accordingly, the court
enough to conclude that the court of the place of deposit cannot exercise wherein any of the crime's essential and material acts have been committed
maintains jurisdiction to try the case; it being understood that the first court criminal aspect of the case must be instituted by the Solicitor General on
taking cognizance of the same excludes the other. Stated differently, a behalf of the State.25cralawred
person charged with a continuing or transitory crime may be validly tried in
any municipality or territory where the offense was in part committed. There have been instances, however, where the Court permitted an offended
Applying these principles, a criminal case for violation of BP 22 may be tiled party to file an appeal without the intervention of the OSG, such as when the
in any of the places where any of its elements occurred - in particular, the offended party questions the civil aspect of a decision of a lower
place where the check is drawn, issued, delivered, or dishonored. court,26 when there is denial of due process of law to the prosecution and the
State or its agents refuse to act on the case to the prejudice of the State and
In this case, while it is undisputed that the subject check was drawn, the private offended party,27 when there is grave error committed by the
issued, and delivered in Manila, records reveal that Ylagan presented judge, or when the interest of substantial justice so requires.28
the same for deposit and encashment at the LBC Bank in Batangas City
where she learned of its dishonor. As such, the MTCC [of Batangas Corollary, a judgment of acquittal may be assailed through a petition
City] correctly took cognizance of Criminal Case No. 45414 as It had the for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court showing that the lower court,
territorial jurisdiction to try and resolve the same. In this light, the in acquitting the accused, committed not merely reversible errors of
denial of the present petition remains judgment, but also exercised grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
warranted.23ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary excess of jurisdiction, or a denial of due process, thereby rendering the
Guided by the foregoing pronouncements, there is no denying, therefore, that assailed judgment null and void. If there is grave abuse of discretion, granting
the court of the place where the check was deposited or presented for the aggrieved party's prayer is not tantamount to putting the accused in
encashment; can be vested with jurisdiction to try cases involving violations double jeopardy,29 in violation of the general rule that the prosecution cannot
of BP 22. Thus, the fact that the check subject of the instant case was drawn, appeal or bring error proceedings from a judgment rendered in favor of the
issued, and delivered in Pampanga does not strip off the Makati MeTC of its defendant in a criminal case. This is because a judgment of acquittal is
jurisdiction over the instant case for it is undisputed that the subject check immediately final and executory, and the prosecution is barred from
was deposited and presented for encashment at the Makati Branch of appealing lest the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy be
Equitable PC IBank. The MeTC of Makati, therefore, correctly took violated.30
cognizance of the instant case and rendered its decision in the proper
exercise of its jurisdiction. Thus, it may be argued that since the instant petition is one for review
on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, not under Rule 65, and was
It may be argued, however, that the instant petition ought to be dismissed not filed by the OSG representing the interest of the Republic, the same
outright due to certain procedural infirmities. Section 35 (1), Chapter 12, Title should be summarily dismissed. The unique and special circumstances
III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code provides that the OSG shall attendant in the instant petition, however, justify an adjudication by the Court
represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and on the merits and not solely on technical grounds.
instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding,
investigation or matter requiring the services of lawyers. Specifically, it shall First of all, the Court stresses that the appellate court's dismissal of the case
represent the Government in all criminal proceedings before the Supreme is not an acquittal of respondent. Basic is the rule that a dismissal of a case is
Court and the Court of Appeals.24 Thus, as a general rule, if a criminal case is different from an acquittal of the accused therein. Except in a dismissal based
dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, the appeal on the on a Demurrer to Evidence filed by the accused, or for violation of the right of
the accused to a speedy trial, the dismissal of a criminal case against the
accused will not result in his acquittal.31 In the oft-cited People v. Salico,32 the Thus, petitioner's resort to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court cannot be struck
Court explained: down as improper. In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the
This argument or reasoning is predicated on a confusion of the legal parties raise only questions of law because the Court, in its exercise of its
concepts of dismissal and acquittal. Acquittal is always based on the power of review, is not a trier of facts. There is a question of law when the
merits, that is, the defendant is acquitted because the evidence does doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on certain state of facts and
not show that defendant's guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt; but which does not call for an existence of the probative value of the evidence
dismissal does tint decide the case on the merits or that the defendant presented by the parties-litigants.35 In De Vera v. Spouses Santiago,36 the
is not gniity. Dismissal terminates the proceeding, either because the Court categorically ruled that the issue of whether the appellate court erred in
court is not a court of competent jurisdiction, or the evidence does noi annulling the RTC Decision for lack of jurisdiction is a question of law, to wit:
show that the offense was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Undeniably, the issue whether the CA erred in annulling the RTC
the court, or the complaint or information is not valid or sufficient in Decision for lack of jurisdiction is a question of law. The resolution of
form and substance, etc. The only case in which the word dismissal is such issue rests solely on what the law [B.P. Blg. 129, as amended]
commonly but not correctly used, instead of the proper term acquittal, is provides on the given set of circumstances as alleged in petitioners'
when, after the prosecution has presented all its: evidence, the defendant complaint for reconveyance of ownership and possession with
moves for me dismissal and the court dismisses the ease on the ground that damages.37ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
the evidence tails to show beyond a reasonable doubt thai the defendant is In the instant case; the lone issue invoked by petitioner is precisely "whether
guilty; for in such case the dismissal is in reality an acquittal because the the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that the Metropolitan Trial Court of
case is decided on the merits. If the prosecution fails to prove that the Makati City did not have jurisdiction over the case despite clear showing that
offense was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court and the offense was committed within the jurisdiction of said court." Evidently,
the case is dismissed, the dismissal is not an acquittal, inasmuch as if it therefore, the instant petition was filed within the bounds of our procedural
were so the defendant could not be again prosecuted before the court rules for the issue herein rests solely on what the law provides on the given
of competent jurisdiction; and it is elemental that in such case, the set of circumstances insofar as the commission of the crime of BP 22 is
defendant may again be prosecuted for the same offense before a court concerned. In criminal cases, the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the
of competent jurisdiction.33ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary averments of the complaint or Information, in relation to the law prevailing at
Thus, when the appellate court herein dismissed the instant case on the the time of the filing of the complaint or Information, and the penalty provided
ground that the MeTC lacked jurisdiction over the offense charged, it did not by law for the crime charged at the time of its commission.38 Thus, when a
decide the same on the merits, let alone resolve the issue of respondent's case involves a proper interpretation of the rules and jurisprudence with
guilt or innocence based on the evidence proffered by the prosecution.34 The respect to the jurisdiction of courts to entertain complaints filed therewith, it
appellate court merely dismissed the case on the erroneous reasoning that deals with a question of law that can be properly brought to this Court under
none of the elements of BP 22 was committed within the lower court's Rule 45.39
jurisdiction, and not because of any finding that the evidence failed to show
respondent's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Clearly, therefore, such More importantly, moreover, since the dismissal of the instant case cannot be
dismissal did not operate as an acquittal, which, as previously discussed, considered as an acquittal of respondent herein, he cannot likewise claim that
may be repudiated only by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules his constitutional right to protection against double jeopardy will be violated.
of Court, showing a grave abuse of discretion. In Paulin v. Hon. Gimenez,40 the Court held:
Jurisprudence on double jeopardy as well as the exceptions thereto which issues in this action could be determined in a more just, speedy and
finds application to the case at bar has been laid down by this Court as inexpensive manner, by entertaining the petition at bar. As an offended
follows: party in a criminal case, private petitioner has sufficient personality and
. . . However, an appeal by the prosecution from the order of dismissal a valid grievance against Judge Adao's order granting bail to the
(of the criminal case) by the trial court shall not constitute double alleged murderers of his (private petitioner's) father.
jeopardy if (1) the dismissal is made upon motion, or with the express xxxx
consent of the defendant; (2) the dismissal is not an acquittal or based
upon consideration of the evidence or of the merits of the case; and (3) The ends of substantial justice indeed require the affirmation of the
the question to be passed upon by the appellate court is purely legal so appellate court's ruling on this point. Clearly, the assailed Order of
that should the dismissal he found incorrect, the case would have to be Judge Santiago was issued in grave abuse of discretion amounting to
remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings, to determine lack of jurisdiction. A void order is no order at all. It cannot confer any right
the guilt or innocence of the defendant.41ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary or be the source of any relief. This Court is not merely a court of law; it is
A cursory review of the records would readily reveal the presence of the likewise a court of justice.
foregoing requisites. First, as early as the stage of respondent's appeal of the
MeTC's decision to the RTC, respondent had already been moving for the To rule otherwise would leave the private respondent without any
dismissal of the case alleging the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, recourse to rectify the public injustice brought about by the trial court's
the CA's dismissal on said ground can rightly be considered to have been Order, leaving her with only the standing to file administrative charges
with respondent's express consent. Second, as earlier mentioned, the for ignorance of the law against the judge and the prosecutor. A party
dismissal herein is not an acquittal or based upon a consideration of the cannot be left without recourse to address a substantive issue in
merits. Third, the question raised in this case is based purely on a question of law.43ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
law. In view therefore of the presence of all three requisites, the Court finds In a similar manner, the Court finds that in the interest of substantial justice, it
that petitioner's appeal of the appellate court's dismissal cannot be barred by must give due course to the instant petition and consequently rule on the
double jeopardy. merits of the same. The circumstances surrounding this case left petitioner
with no other suitable recourse but to appeal the case herself. Not only was
As to the issue of petitioner's legal standing to file the instant petition in the there an absence of support from the OSG, said government office also took
absence of the OSG's participation, the circumstances herein warrant the a position in contrast to the rights and interests of petitioner. Moreover, as
Court's consideration. In Narciso v. Sta. Romana-Cruz,42 the Court gave due discussed above, the arguments which ran counter to petitioner's interest as
regard to the ends of substantial justice by giving due course to a petition well as the grounds used to support them were simply inapplicable to the
filed before it by the private offended party, viz.: issue at hand. In fact, these erroneous contentions were adopted by the
Citing the "ends of substantial justice," People v. Calo, however, provided an appellate court in their entirety, dismissing the instant case in a manner not in
exception to the above doctrines in this manner: accord with law and applicable jurisprudence. For the Court, now, to apply
While the rule is, as held by the Court of Appeals, only the Solicitor General procedural rules in their strict and literal sense by similarly dismissing, as the
may bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, or CA had, petitioner's action poses serious consequences tantamount to a
represent the People or the State in criminal proceedings pending in this miscarriage of justice. To rule that the accused can postpone criminal
Court and the Court of Appeals (Republic vs. Partisala, 118 SCRA 320 prosecution and delay the administration of justice at petitioner's expense on
[1982]), the ends of substantial justice would be better served, and the the erroneous ground of lack of jurisdiction would create a hazardous
precedent and open loopholes in our criminal justice system.44
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED. The
Indeed, the unique and exceptional circumstances in the instant case Decision dated January 18, 2011 and Resolution dated August 9, 2011 of the
demand that the Court forego a rigid application of the technicalities under Court Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 32723 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The Decision dated February 23, 2009 and Order dated July 13, 2009, of the
the law so as to prevent petitioner from suffering a grave injustice. As Regional Trial Court in Criminal Case Nos. 08-1876-77, which affirmed the
disclosed by the records, petitioner had already fulfilled her end of the Joint Decision dated September 3, 2008 of the Metropolitan Trial Court in
agreement in giving respondent, as early as in the year 2003, construction Criminal Case Nos. 337902-03 are hereby REINSTATED.
materials amounting to half a million pesos and yet up until now, she has not
been paid therefor. In feet, after having sufficiently proven to the satisfaction SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
of both the MeTC and the RTC her right allegedly violated by respondent, the
CA simply dismissed, albeit without prejudice to the re-filing of the case with
the appropriate court, her action for the incorrect ground of wrong venue. On
the mistaken reasoning that the MeTC of Makati City did not have jurisdiction
over the instant case, the CA, without providing any legal or jurisprudential
basis, would have petitioner start from the very beginning and refile her
complaint before the same court which already had jurisdiction in the first
place.

Thus, when there exists meritorious grounds to overlook strict procedural

matters, the Court cannot turn a blind eye thereto lest the administration of
justice be derailed by an overly stringent application of the rules.45 Rules of
procedure are meant to be tools to facilitate a fair and orderly conduct of
proceedings. Strict adherence thereto must not get in the way of achieving
substantial justice. As long as their purpose is sufficiently met and no
violation of due process and fair play takes place, the rules should be liberally
construed.46 Dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned
upon where the policy of the court is to encourage hearings of appeals on
their merits and the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid,
technical sense; rules of procedure are used only to help secure, not override
substantial justice. It is a far better and more prudent course of action for the
court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case
on appeal to attain the ends of justice rather than dispose of the case on
technicality and cause a grave injustice to the parties, giving a false
impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay,
if not a miscarriage of justice.47