PEOPLE

& SAN MIGUEL CORP. (SMC) vs. HON. GOROSPE (RTC Pampanga) & PARULAN
G.R. No. L-74053-54 | January 20, 1988 | J. Melencio-Herrera

DOCTRINE & SUMMARY: Respondent Judge Gorospe dismissed 2 criminal cases: (1) Estafa, and (2) violation of B.P. 22 since
the 2 elements of dishonored checks (deceit and damange) were not committed in his territorial jurisdiction. SC ruled that
Gorospe had jurisdiction to try the case since the delivery of the check (for estafa) is the essential act for its consummation as
an obligation and knowledge of insufficiency of funds on the part of the drawer is the essential ingredient of violating B.P. 22.

FACTS:
• Parulan is an authorized wholesale dealer of SMC in Bulacan. He was charged in the same court with 2 crim. cases:
o violation of the Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Blg. 22) for having issued a check in favor of SMC but was dishonored
for having 'insufficient funds and, in spite of repeated demands, failed to make good said check.
o Estafa [RPC Art. 315 (2-D)] for having made a check in favor of SMC in payment of beer he purchased, but was
refused for "insufficient funds" and, in spite of repeated demands, for having failed to redeem said check.
• Parulan claims that the checks were filled up without his knowledge. He further argues that:
o Deceit and damage are the two essential elements that make up the offenses involving dishonored checks. It
must be established that both/any one of these elements occur within which this Court has jurisdiction
• Hon. Gorospe dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction since: there’s (1) No deceit: the 2 checks were issued and
delivered to Cornelio at Guiguinto, Bulacan and (2) No damage: the checks were dishonored in Santa Maria, Bulacan.
• Parulan argues that the dismissal was an acquittal not reviewable by certiorari, and that to set the order aside after plea
and trial on the merits, would subject him to double jeopardy.

ISSUE: W/N the dismissal of the two criminal cases were issued with grave abuse of discretion – YES.
• There are two dishonored checks involved, each the subject of different penal laws and with different basic elements:
o In Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check, deceit and damage are essential elements of the offense and have
to be established with satisfactory proof to warrant conviction.
o For violation of the Bouncing Checks Law, the elements of deceit and damage are not essential nor required.
An essential element is knowledge on the part of the maker of the check of the insufficiency of his funds. The
Anti-Bouncing Checks Law makes the mere act of issuing a worthless check a special offense. Malice and intent
in issuing the worthless check are immaterial, the offense being malum prohibitum. The gravamen of the offense
is the issuance of a check, not the non-payment of an obligation.

ISSUE: W/N venue was sufficiently conferred in RTC Pampanga in the two cases – YES.
• ROC Rule 110 Sec. 14 (a): In all criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the
municipality/province wherein the offense was committed or any one of the essential ingredients thereof took place.
o However, if any of the essential acts of the crime occurred in one territory, the Court of that territory has the
sole jurisdiction to try the case
• The estafa charged in the two information appears to be transitory or continuing in nature. Deceit and damage may
arise independently in separate places. ITCAB, deceit took place in San Fernando, Pampanga while the damage was
inflicted in Bulacan where the cheek was dishonored. Jurisdiction may be entertained by either Bulacan or Pampanga.
o While the check was issued in Bulacan, it was completely drawn in San Fernando, Pampanga, where it was
uttered and delivered. The delivery of the instrument is the act essential to its consummation as an obligation.
• The violation of the Bouncing Checks Law also appears to be continuing in nature.
o The offense is committed by the very fact of its performance and the Law penalizes not only the fact of dishonor
of a check but also the act of making or drawing and issuance of a bouncing check. The case, therefore, could
have been filed also in Bulacan.
o The determinative factor (in determining venue) is the place of the issuance of the check. However, it is likewise
true that knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of the check of the insufficiency of his funds, which is
an essential ingredient of the offense is by itself a continuing eventuality, whether the accused be within one
territory or another. Accordingly, jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense also lies in RTC Pampanga.
• The dismissal of the cases by Gorospe is correctable by Certiorari. The error committed is one of jurisdiction and not an
error of judgment on the merits. An error of jurisdiction renders whatever order of the Trial Court nun and void.

NOTES:
• The present petition for certiorari does not place Parulan in double jeopardy for the same offense. The questioned
judgment (which is null and void) was not an adjudication on the merits. It was a dismissal upon Gorospe’s erroneous
conclusion on jurisdiction. Where an order dismissing a criminal case is not a decision on the merits, it cannot bar as res
judicata a subsequent case based on the same offense.

DISPOSITION: Gorospe’s order of dismissal set aside; and hereby ordered to reassume jurisdiction over the Criminal Cases.