6/23/2016

(1)CaseDigest11UyvsCourtofAppealsGR119000|SueAlmaAcademia.edu
Search...

HOME

ANALYTICS

SESSIONS

U P LOA D

CaseDigest11UyvsCourtofAppealsGR119000

Case Digest Criminal Procedure

Uy vs Court of Appeals
GR 119000 July 28, 1997
Nature:

Jurisdiction

FACTS:
UPLOADED
BY
While

VIEWS
Rosa
Uy was helping her husband manage their lumber business, she and a
Sue Alma
273
friend, Consolacion
agreen to form a partnership wherein the latter will contribute
additional capital as industrial partner for the expansion of Rosas lumber business.
Various sums amounting to P500,000 were claimed to have been given
Consolacion for the business, but no receipt was ever issued. The friendship of the
two turned sour, thus, Consolacion demanded the return of her investment but the
checks issued by Rosa were all dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Consolacion
filed a complaint for Estafa and for violation of BP 22. The Manila RTC acquitted the
petitioner of Estafa but convicted her of the charges under BP 22. Petitione
contents that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the offenses under BP
22 and assuming arguendo that she raised the matter of jurisdiction only upon
appeal, she cannot be estopped from questioning the jurisdiction.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC of Manila acquired jurisdiction over the violation of the
Bouncing checks law.
RULING:
Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the court
jurisidiction to take cognizance or to try the offense allegedly committed therein by
the accused. This it cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense
allegedly committed outside that of that limited territory. Jurisdiction of the court
over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complain or information.
Once it is shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case. However, if the
evidence adduced during the trial shows that the offense was commit
somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction. In the
case at bar, the crimes of Estafa and violation of BP 22 are two different elements
and necessarily, for the court to acquire jurisdiction, each of the essent
ingredients of each crime has to be satisfied. The respondent court is wrong to
conclude that inasmuch as the RTC of Manila acquired jurisdiction over the Estafa
case then it also acquired jurisdiction over the violation of BP 22. No proof has been
offered that the checks were issued, delivered, dishonoured or knowledge
insufficiency of funds occurred in Manila, which are essential elements necessary
for the Manila court to acquire jurisdiction. BP 22 on the other hand, as a continuing
offense, may be tried in any jurisdiction where the offense was in part committee.
Petitioner also timely questioned the jurisdiction of the court.
As provided by jurisprudence, we can see that even if a party fails to file a motion to
quash, he may still question the jurisdiction of the court later on. The general rule
that the jurisdiction of a court over a 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

https://www.academia.edu/4083799/Case_Digest_1_1_Uy_vs_Court_of_Appeals_GR_119000

1/2

6/23/2016

(1)CaseDigest11UyvsCourtofAppealsGR119000|SueAlmaAcademia.edu
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 proceeding, even on appeal
Howeverm this rules has been qualified in the case of Tijan vs. Sibanghan
wherein the defense of lack of jurisdiction of the court can be held to be barred by
laches. This case however cannot be applied in the case at bar since the accused is
not guilty of laches. RTC of Manila has no jurisdiction over the case.

LLb-2nd

Alma S. Mendoza

Job Board

About

Press

Blog

People

Papers

CrimPro Digest

Terms

Privacy

Copyright

We're Hiring!

Help Center

Academia 2016

UPLOADED BY

VIEWS

Sue Alma

273

https://www.academia.edu/4083799/Case_Digest_1_1_Uy_vs_Court_of_Appeals_GR_119000

2/2