REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

8TH JUDICIAL REGION

Regional Trial Court
Branch 6
Tacloban City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Criminal Case No. 2018-456

Plaintiff, For: Violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22

-versus-

RACHEL CHU
Accused,

X-------------------------------------X

MOTION TO QUASH

COMES NOW, the accused, Rachel Chu, through the

undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully
moves for the dismissal of the above case and / or quashal of the
information on any of the following grounds:

1. That the facts charged do not constitute an offense; and

2. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the
offense charged.

ARGUMENTS

FIRST GROUND: THAT THE FACTS CHARGED DO NOT

CONSTITUTE AN OFFENSE

To sustain conviction for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22,

the prosecution must prove the following essential elements, namely:

1. The making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for

account or for value;

2. The knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the

time of issue there were no sufficient funds in or credit with

1|Motion to Quash
 the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon
its presentment; and

3. The dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for

insufficiency of funds or credit or the dishonor for the same
reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered
the drawee bank to stop payment.

The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of proof of

receipt of such notice of dishonor, although not as an element of the
offense, but as a means to establish that the issuer of a check was
aware of insufficiency of funds when he issued the check and the bank
dishonored it, in relation to the second element of the offense and
Section 2 of B.P. 22. Considering that the second element involves a
state of mind which is difficult to establish, Section 2 of B.P. 22 creates
a presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds, as it reads:
Sec. 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. – The making, drawing, and
issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient
funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within ninety days from the date of
the check, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds
or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due
thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check
within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid
by the drawee.

The prosecution nevertheless miserably failed to prove one

essential element that consummates the crime of BP 22, i.e., the fact
of dishonor of the two subject checks. It noted that other than the
checks, no bank representative testified about presentment and
dishonor. The elements of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 must concur before
one can be convicted of this offense. Since one element is wanting, it
is believed that the guilt of the accused has not been established
beyond reasonable doubt.

SECOND GROUND: THAT THE COURT TRYING THE CASE HAS

NO JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENSE CHARGED

Jurisdiction over the offense charged may also be considered as

jurisdiction over the subject matter, which is the power to adjudge
concerning the general question involved. (Herrera vs. Barretto, 25
PHIL. 256) In criminal cases, the elements of jurisdiction over the
subject matter are: (1) The nature of the offense and / or the penalty
attached thereto; and (2) the fact that the offense has been committed
within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. (People vs. Enriquez,
CA-G.R. No. 12778)

2|Motion to Quash
 Jurisdiction over the subject matter in criminal cases is conferred
by sovereign authority which organized the court and is only given in
the manner and form prescribed by law. It cannot be conferred upon
the court by the accused, by express waiver or otherwise.

The municipality or territory where the offense was committed

or where any of its essential ingredients occurred fixes not only the
venue of the criminal case but also its jurisdiction. This if for the reason
that in criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional as the court has no
jurisdiction to try an offense committed outside its territorial
jurisdiction (People vs. Mercado, 65 PHIL 665).

With the subsequent amendment by Republic Act no. 7691, the

first level courts assume exclusive jurisdiction over Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22 cases. Relative to violations of said law of which accused has
been charged of, the elements or essential ingredients of the offense
are as follows:

1. The making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply

for account or for value;

2. The knowledge of the maker, drawer or issuer that at the

time of issue there are no sufficient funds in or credit with
the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full
upon its presentment; and

3. The subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank

for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same
reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause,
ordered the bank to stop payment.

It is evident that the elements of said offense do not take place

simultaneously but one after the other. It may occur then that the
making, drawing and issuance of a check takes place in one
municipality or territory while the dishonor thereof in another. Hence,
it may be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory
where it was made, drawn and issued or where it was dishonored.
Otherwise said, it is only courts of either municipality or territory (place
of issuance or place of dishonor), and no other which can validly
exercise jurisdiction and thus hear and decide cases involving said
cases.

PRAYER

3|Motion to Quash
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed
that the instant case be dismiss and / or the criminal information be
QUASHED based on the above reasons.

Other reliefs and remedies, just and equitable, are likewise prayed
for.

Respectfully submitted, Tacloban City, Philippines, 1st of May 2018.

Atty. Nicholas Young

Counsel for the Accused
Young & Khoo Law Offices
XYZ Bldg. Real St., Tacloban City
Attys. Roll No. 12345/ 1-1-06
PTR No. 12345/1-03-18, Tacloban City
IBP O.R. NO. 7654321/01-01-18,Tacloban Chapter
MCLE COMPLIANCE NO.: V-0001111/01-01-2018
Phone No: 09161234567

NOTICE OF HEARING

To the Branch Clerk of Court

Assistant City Prosecutor
Regional Trial Court
Tacloban City, Branch 6

Please submit the foregoing Motion to the Court for its

consideration and approval immediately upon receipt hereof and kindly
include the same in the Court’s calendar for hearing on the 5th day of
May, 2018 at 8:30 in the morning.

Atty. Nicholas Young

Copy furnished thru personal service:

Astrid Leong
Assistant City Prosecutor
Office of the City Prosecutor
Tacloban City

4|Motion to Quash