CRIMPRO DIGESTS G01 TOPIC: CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

ATTY. ARNO V. SANIDAD AUTHOR: Haira Montañer

11) PEOPLE V. GROSPE, G.R. NOS. L-74053-54, JANUARY 20, 1988 drawee bank, at Santa Maria, Bulacan. The element of damage was inflicted
Melencio-Herrera, J. on the offended party in Santa Maria, Bulacan where the checks issued in its
favor were dishonored. Hence he dismissed the cases for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioners: People of the Philippines & San Miguel Corporation,
 Petitioner SMC filed this petition for Certiorari challenging the dismissal of
Respondents: Nathaniel Grospe (Presiding Judge, RTC Pampanga) and the two criminal cases on the ground that they were issued with grave abuse
Manuel Parulan (accused) of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The People maintaining that
jurisdiction is properly vested in the RTC of Pampanga.
RECIT READY: Manuel Parulan is a dealer of San Mig Corp in Bulacan. He was
charged with violations of BP22 and estafa for allegedly issuing 2 checks in favor of ISSUE: Whether the venue was sufficiently conferred in the RTC of Pampanga in the two
SMC for beer purchases which were dishonored by Planters Dev’t Bank (drawee) in cases.
Bulacan when presented for having been drawn against “insufficient funds.” But
Judge Grospe of RTC Pampanga dismissed the case for lack of jusrisdiction. SC held HELD: YES RTC of Pampanga has jurisdiction over the cases. Estafa and violation of Bouncing
that Judge Grospe erred in dismissing the case because he had jurisdiction to try Check law are transitory or continuing crimes and a person charged with a transitory crime
and decide the case. Estafa and violation of BP22 are transitory crimes. Having may be validly tried in any municipality or province where the offense was in part
been charged with transitory crimes the case may be validly tried in any committed.
municipality or province where the offense was in part committed. For Estafa there
are the elements of deceit and damage. Deceit took place in Pampanga and Elements of Estafa are deceit and damage, deceit took place in San Fernando, Pampanga,
damage was done in Bulacan where the check was dishonored. For BP 22 mere act while the damage was inflicted in Bulacan where the check was dishonored by the drawee
of issuing a worthless check is punishable so while the check was issued in Bulacan, bank. Jurisdiction may be had by either the Bulacan Court or the Pampanga Court. The
it was in Pampanga where the check was uttered and delivered. violation of Bouncing Checks Law penalizes the fact of dishonor of a check and also the act of
making or drawing and issuance of a bouncing check thus, the case could have been filed also
DOCTRINE: A person charged with a transitory crime may be validly tried in any in Bulacan being the place of the issuance of the check. The delivery of the instrument is the
municipality or province where the offense was in part committed. final act essential to the consummation of the obligation. Although the check was received by
SMC in Bulacan, it was not the delivery contemplated by the law to the payee (SMC). Mr.
FACTS: Cornelio is not the person who could take the check as a holder thus, he had to forward the
 Respondent-accused, Manuel Parulan, an authorized dealer of petitioner check to the regional office of SMC in Pampanga. Deceit took place in Pampanga where the
San Miguel Corporation (SMC) in Bulacan, was charged in Criminal Case No. check was legally issued and delivered. Hence, jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense
2800 of RTC Pampanga with violation of Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. 22) for also lies in RTC Pampanga.
issuing a check in favor of SMC but which was dishonored for having been
drawn against “insufficient funds”, and also in Criminal Case No. 2813 of Present petition for Certiorari does not place Parulan in double jeopardy for the same
same Court with Estafa (Art. 315, par. 2(d) RPC) for having made out a check offense because the questioned judgment was not an adjudication on the merits. It was a
in favor of SMC in payment of beer he purchased but was refused payment dismissal upon Judge Grospe’s erroneous conclusion. And where an order dismissing a
for “insufficient funds.” criminal case is not a decision on the merits, it cannot bar as res judicata a subsequent case
 Parulan failed to heed demands to make good said checks based on the same offense.
 Respondent Judge Grospe ruled that since the checks were both dishonored
by the drawee bank - Planters Development Bank at Santa Maria, Bulacan, Wherefore, decision of Respondent Judge Grospe is set aside and he is ordered to reassume
the court is bereft of jurisdiction to pass judgment on the accused on the jurisdiction over Criminal Cases Nos. 2800 and 2813.
basis of the merits of these cases.
 He further reasoned that that none of the elements of the crimes took place
within the jurisdictional area of RTC Pampanga and in order that the Court
may have jurisdiction to try said cases, both or any one of these elements
composing the offenses charged must occur within the area over which this
Court has territorial jurisdiction.
 The two checks involved herein were issued by the accused at Guiguinto,
Bulacan which were dishonored by the Planters Development Bank, the