45. RIGOR VS. PEOPLE thereof are inconsequential.

—Assuming arguendo that the payee had

knowledge that he had insufficient funds at the time he issued the check,
450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED such knowledge by the payee is immaterial as deceit is not an essential
Rigor vs. People element of the offense under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. The gravamen of
G.R. No. 144887. November 17, 2004.* the offense is the issuance of a bad check; hence, malice and intent in the
ALFREDO RIGOR, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, issuance thereof are inconsequential.
respondent. Negotiable Instruments Law; Notice of Dishonor of a Check;The notice
Criminal Law;  Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22; Elements; The of dishonor of a check may be sent to the drawer or maker by the drawee
elements of the offense are: (1) making, drawing, and issuance of any check bank, the holder of the check, or the offended party either by personal
to apply on account or for value; (2) knowledge of the maker, drawer, or delivery or by registered mail. The notice of dishonor to the maker of a check
issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit must be in writing.—The notice of dishonor of a check may be sent to the
with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its drawer or maker by the
presentment; and (3) subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank 452
for insufficiency of funds or credit, or dishonor of the check for the same 452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop Rigor vs. People
payment.—Petitioner is charged with violation of Section 1 of Batas drawee bank, the holder of the check, or the offended party either by
Pambansa Bilang 22, personal delivery or by registered mail. The notice of dishonor to the maker
_______________ of a check must be in writing.
*
 FIRST DIVISION. Criminal Law; Violations of B.P. Blg. 22;  Continuing Crimes;Remedial
451 Law; Jurisdiction;  Violations of BP Blg. 22 are categorized as transitory or
VOL. 442, NOVEMBER 17, 2004 451 continuing crimes; In such crimes, some acts material and essential to the
Rigor vs. People crimes and requisite to their consummation occur in one municipality or
thus: SECTION 1. Checks without sufficient funds.—Any person who territory and some in another, in which event, the court of either has
makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, jurisdiction to try the cases, it being understood that the first court taking
knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit cognizance of the case excludes the other.—Violations of Batas Pambansa
with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its Bilang 22 are categorized as transitory or continuing crimes. In such crimes,
presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank some acts material and essential to the crimes and requisite to their
for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the consummation occur in one municipality or territory and some in another, in
same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank which event, the court of either has jurisdiction to try the cases, it being
to stop payment, shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than thirty understood that the first court taking cognizance of the case excludes the
days but not more than one (1) year or by a fine of not less than but not more other. Hence, a person charged with a transitory crime may be validly tried in
than double the amount of the check which fine shall in no case exceed Two any municipality or territory where the offense was in part committed.
hundred thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
discretion of the court. The elements of the offense are: (1) Making, drawing, The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
and issuance of any check to apply on account or for value; (2) knowledge of      Jesus A. Concepcion for petitioner.
the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have      The Solicitor General for the People.
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the AZCUNA, J.:
check in full upon its presentment; and (3) subsequent dishonor of the check This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of
by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or dishonor of the Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR No. 18855, which affirmed the decision of the
check for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 163, in Criminal Case No. 86025,
ordered the bank to stop payment. convicting petitioner Alfredo Rigor of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg.
Same;  Same; Same;  Assuming arguendo that the payee had 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law), and imposing upon him the penalty of
knowledge that he had insufficient funds at the time he issued the check, imprisonment for six (6) months and ordering him to restitute to the Rural
such knowledge by the payee is immaterial as deceit is not an essential Bank of San Juan the sum of P500,000 and to pay the costs.
element of the offense under B.P. Blg. 22; The gravamen of the offense is 453
the issuance of a bad check—hence malice and intent in the issuance VOL. 442, NOVEMBER 17, 2004 453
Page 1 of 6
 Rigor vs. People It was not the bank policy for a borrower to apply for a loan, obtain its
The Information1 against petitioner reads: approval and its proceeds on the same day. Appellant’s case was a special
That on or about the 16th day of November 1989 in the Municipality of San one considering that he is the “kumpare” of the President of RBSJ and he is
Juan, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable well-known to all the bank’s directors since he, like them, comes from Tarlac.
Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and Appellant failed to pay his loan upon its maturity on December 16,
feloniously make or draw and issue to Rural Bank of San Juan, Inc. thru its 1989. He personally asked de Guzman for a two-monthextension and
loan officer Carlos N. Garcia, a postdated check to apply on account or for advised RBSJ to date to February 16, 1990 his Associated Bank check no.
value the check described below: 165476. Failing anew to pay, he asked for another two-month extension or
     Check No. :      165476 up to April 16, 1990. Both requests de Guzman granted. On April 16, 1990,
     Drawn against :      Associated Bank, Tarlac Branch appellant still failed to pay his loan. Basangan and his co-employee, Carlos
     In the Amount of :      P500,000.00 Garcia, went to Tarlac to collect from appellant the amount of the loan.
     Dated :      February 16, 1990 Appellant’s written request for another 30-day extension was denied by de
     Payable to :      Rural Bank of San Juan Guzman who instead, sent him a formal demand letter dated April 25, 1990.
said accused well knowing that at the time of issue on 16 November 1989, On May 25, 1990, Associated Bank check no. 165476 was deposited with
he has already insufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank for the PS Bank, San Juan Branch. The check was later returned with the words
payment in full of the face amount of such check and that as of 2 February “closed account” stamped on its face. Associated Bank employee PASION
1990 his bank accounts were already closed and that check when presented declared that appellant’s Current Account No. 1022-001197-9 with
for payment from and after the date thereof, was subsequently dishonored Associated Bank had been closed since February 2, 1990. Appellant’s
for the reason “Account Closed” and despite receipt of notice of such balance under the bank’s statement of account as of November 16, 1989
dishonor, the accused failed to pay said payee the face amount of said check was only P859. The most appellant had on his account
or to make arrangement for full payment thereof during the period of not less was P40,000recorded on November 19, 1989 (Exh. “K”).
than five (5) banking days after receiving notice. Basangan and Garcia, in Tarlac, advised appellant of the dishonor of his
When arraigned, petitioner pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, trial on the merits check. Appellant wrote Atty. Joselito Lim, RBSJ Chairman of the Board,
ensued. about the loan and arrangements as to the schedule of his payment. His
The facts, as narrated by the Court of Appeals, are as follows: letter was referred to de Guzman, who, in turn, sent to him another demand
The prosecution evidence was furnished by witnesses Edmarcos Basangan letter dated September 17, 1990. The letter informed him of the dishonor of
of Rural Bank of San Juan (RBSJ) and Esteban Pasion, employee of the his check. De Guzman
Associated Bank. It was shown that on November 16, 1989, appellant 455
(petitioner herein) applied for a commercial loan from the Rural Bank of San VOL. 442, NOVEMBER 17, 2004 455
Juan, Inc., at N. Domingo St., San Juan, Metro Manila in the sum of Rigor vs. People
P500,000.00 (Exh. “A”). required him to take the necessary step for the early settlement of his
_______________ obligation. He still refused to pay.
1
 Records, p. 3. Appellant denied the charge. He claimed that on November 16, 1989,
454 Agapito Uy and his sister Agnes Angeles proposed to him that he secure a
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED loan from the RBSJ for P500,000. P200,000 of it will be for him and the
Rigor vs. People P300,000 will go to Uy and to his sister to pay unpaid loans of borrowers in
He signed a promissory note stating that an interest of 24% per annum from their “side banking” activities. For the approval of his loan, Uy told him that
its date will be charged on the loan (Exh. “B”). The loan was approved by appellant can put up his four-door Mercedes Benz as collateral for the
RBSJ’s Bank Manager Melquecedes de Guzman and Controller Agustin Uy. P200,000 loan. The P300,000 will have no collateral. Uy also told him the he
A cashier’s check with RBSJ No. 2023424 in the amount of P487,000.00, net (Uy) has complete control of the bank and his Mercedes Benz will be enough
proceeds of the loan, was issued to appellant (Exh. “C”). Appellant endorsed, collateral for the P500,000.
then encashed the check with RBSJ Teller Eleneth Cruz, who stamped Appellant agreed to the proposal. He signed a blank loan application form
thereon the word “paid” (Exh. “C-4”). After appellant received the proceeds, and a promissory note plus a chattel mortgage for his Mercedes Benz.
he issued an undated check, Associated Bank Check No. 165476, Tarlac Thereafter, he was told to come back in two days. Uy gave him two Premiere
Branch, in the amount of P500,000, payable to RBSJ (Exh. “D”). Bank checks worth P100,000 each. He gave one check to his brother Efren
Rigor and the other to his sister-in-law for encashment in Tarlac. He issued
Page 2 of 6
to Uy a personal check for P500,000 undated. This check was deposited in Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
the bank for encashment in the later part of May, 1990 but it bounced. When Petitioner raises the following:
demand was made for him to pay his loan, he told Uy to get his Mercedes 1. 1)Absent the element of knowingly issuing a worthless check entitles
Benz as payment for P200,000 but Uy refused. Uy wanted him to pay the the petitioner to acquittal;
whole amount of P500,000.2 _______________
4
On July 8, 1994, the trial court rendered judgment against petitioner, the  Id., at pp. 185-186.
5
dispositive portion of which reads:  Supra, note 2, at p. 45.
“WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, this Court finds accused 457
Alfredo Rigor guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of VOL. 442, NOVEMBER 17, 2004 457
Section 1 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and there being no mitigating or Rigor vs. People
aggravating circumstance on record, imposes upon him the penalty of 1. 2)Without proof that accused actually received a notice of dishonor,
imprisonment for six (6) months and to restitute to the Rural Bank of San a prosecution for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law cannot
Juan the sum of P500,000.00 and to pay the costs.”3 prosper;
The trial court stated the reasons for petitioner’s conviction, thus: 2. 3)The Pasig Court below had no jurisdiction to try and decide the
_______________ case for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.6
2
 Rollo, pp. 26-32. Petitioner contends that he did not violate Batas Pambansa Bilang
3
 Supra, note 1, at p. 186. 22 because he told the officers of the complainant bank from the very
456 beginning that he did not have sufficient funds in the bank; he was merely
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED enticed by Agustin Uy, the bank’s managing director and comptroller, to
Rigor vs. People obtain the instant loan where he received only P200,000, while Uy took
In the case at bar, accused admitted having issued Associated Bank Check P300,000; and his check was partly used to collateralize an accommodation
No. 165476 in the amount of P500,000.00. The check was undated when in favor of Uy in the amount of P300,000.
issued. Records, however, show that it was issued on 16 November 1989 but The contention is without merit.
as it appear[s] now it is dated 16 February 1990. The probable reason must Petitioner is charged with violation of Section 1 of Batas Pambansa
be because upon the maturity of his loan on 16 December 1989, accused Bilang 22, thus:
asked for extension of two (2) months to pay the same. And the expiration of SECTION 1. Checks without sufficient funds.—Any person who makes or
that two (2) months period is 16 February 1990. Nevertheless, Exhibit “K” for draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the
the prosecution including its submarkings show that the highest outstanding time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the
amount in the current account of accused with the Associated Bank, Tarlac drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment,
Branch for the month of November 1989, the month Rigor issued aforesaid which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency
check, is only about P40,000.00. Hence, Rigor has no sufficient deposit in of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had
the bank to cover the amount of P500,000.00 when he issued Check No. not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment,
165476. Therefore, Rigor knowingly issued the same he having no sufficient shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more
funds in or credit with the drawee bank in violation of section 1 of [B.P.] Blg. than one (1) year or by a fine of not less than but not more than double the
22. amount of the check which fine shall in no case exceed Two hundred
The defense of the accused that the amount of loan he secured from the thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the
Rural Bank of San Juan is only P200,000.00 is of no moment. The fact is he court.
admitted having issued Associated Bank Check No. 165476 in the amount of The elements of the offense are: (1) Making, drawing, and issuance of any
P500,000.00 and upon its deposit for encashment, the same was dishonored check to apply on account or for value; (2) knowledge of the maker, drawer,
for reason account closed.4 or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or
Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the credit with the
trial court’s decision. The dispositive portion of the appellate court’s decision _______________
reads: 6
 Id., at pp. 15, 19, 20.
“WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED with the modification 458
that the reference to lack of mitigating or aggravating circumstances should 458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
be deleted and disregarded.”5 Rigor vs. People
Page 3 of 6
drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and authorized RBSJ to date his check on February 16, 1990, his current account
(3) subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of was already closed two weeks earlier, on February 2, 1990. 13
funds or credit, or dishonor of the check for the same reason had not the Petitioner, however, argues that since the officers of the bank knew that he
drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment. 7 did not have sufficient funds, he has not violated Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.
As found by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, all the Assuming arguendo that the payee had knowledge that he had
aforementioned elements are present in this case. insufficient funds at the time he issued the check, such knowledge by the
The evidence shows that on November 16, 1989, petitioner applied 8 for a payee is immaterial as deceit is not an essential element of the offense
loan in the amount of P500,000 with the Rural Bank of San Juan and on the under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.14 The gravamen of the offense is the
same day, he issued an undated Associated Bank Check No. 165476 9worth issuance of a bad check; hence, malice and intent in the issuance thereof are
P500,000 payable to Rural Bank of San Juan in connection with the loan, inconsequential.15
which check was later dated February 16, 1990.10 The check was thus issued Moreover, the cited case of Magno v. Court of Appeals,16which resulted in
to apply for value.11 This shows the presence of the first element of the the acquittal of the accused therein, is inapplicable to petitioner as the facts
offense. of said case are different. In Magno, the bounced checks were issued to
The presence of the second element of the offense is shown by cover a warranty deposit in a lease contract, where the lessor-supplier was
petitioner’s admission12 that he knew of the insufficiency of his funds in the also the financier of the deposit. 17 It was a modus operandi whereby the
drawee bank when he issued the check and he allegedly did not hide the fact supplier of the goods is also able to sell or lease the same goods at the same
from the officials of the Rural Bank of San Juan. time privately financing
The Court of Appeals correctly ruled, thus: _______________
13
xxx  Supra, note 2, at pp. 35-36.
14
“Knowledge involves a state of mind difficult to establish. We hold that  Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 233 SCRA 301, 309 (1994).
15
appellant’s admission of the insufficiency of his fund at the time he issued the  Ibid.
16
check constitutes the very element of “knowledge” contemplated in Sec. 1 of  210 SCRA 471 (1992).
17
BP 22. The prima faciepresumption of  Ibasco v. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 449, 461 (1996).
_______________ 460
7
 Vaca v. Court of Appeals, 298 SCRA 656, 661 (1998), citing Navarro v. 460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 639, 643-644 (1994). Rigor vs. People
8
 Exh. “A”, Records, p. 130. those in desperate need so they may be accommodated. 18The Court therein
9
 Exh. “D”, Records, p. 133. held:
10
 TSN, November 17, 1993, pp. 3-14. To charge the petitioner for the refund of a “warranty deposit” which he did
11
 See Ngo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 155815, July 14, not withdraw as it was not his own account, it having remained with LS
2004, 434 SCRA 522. Finance, is to even make him pay an unjust “debt,” to say the least, since
12
 Petition, Rollo, p. 16. petitioner did not receive the amount in question. All the while, said amount
459 was in the safekeeping of the financing company, which is managed,
VOL. 442, NOVEMBER 17, 2004 459 supervised and operated by the corporation officials and employees of LS
Rigor vs. People Finance. Petitioner did not even know that the checks he issued were turned
knowledge required in Sec. 2, Id., does not apply because (a) the check was over by Joey Gomez to Mrs. Teng, whose operation was kept from his
presented for payment only on May 25, 1990 or beyond the 90-day period, knowledge on her instruction. This fact alone evoke suspicion that the
which expired on May 16, 1990, counted from the maturity date of the check transaction is irregular and immoral per se, hence, she specifically requested
on February 16, 1990 and (b) an actually admitted knowledge of a fact needs Gomez not to divulge the source of the “warrant deposit.”
no presumption. It is intriguing to realize that Mrs. Teng did not want the petitioner to know
While it is true that if a check is presented beyond ninety (90) days from that it was she who “accommodated” petitioner’s request for Joey Gomez, to
its due date, there is no more presumption of knowledge by the drawer that source out the needed funds for the “warranty deposit.” Thus it unfolds the
at the time of issue his check has no sufficient funds, the presumption in this kind of transaction that is shrouded with mystery, gimmickry and doubtful
case is supplanted by appellant’s own admission that he did not hide the fact legality. It is in simple language, a scheme whereby Mrs. Teng as the
that he had no sufficient funds for the check. In fact, it appears that when he supplier of the equipment in the name of her corporation, Mancor, would be
able to “sell or lease” its goods as in this case, and at the same time,
Page 4 of 6
 22
privately financing those who desperately need petty accommodations as  Exh. “G”, Records, p. 137.
this one. This modus operandi has in so many instances victimized 462
unsuspecting businessmen, who likewise need protection from the law, by 462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
availing of the deceptively called “warranty deposit” not realizing that they Rigor vs. People
also fall prey to leasing equipment under the guise of a lease purchase The notice of dishonor of a check may be sent to the drawer or maker by the
agreement when it is a scheme designed to skim off business clients. 19 drawee bank, the holder of the check, or the offended party either by
This case, however, involves an ordinary loan transaction between petitioner personal delivery or by registered mail.23 The notice of dishonor to the maker
and the Rural Bank of San Juan wherein petitioner issued the check certainly of a check must be in writing.24
to be applied to the payment of his loan since the check and the loan have In this case, prosecution witness Edmarcos Basangan testified that after
the same value of P500,000. Whether petitioner agreed to give a portion of petitioner’s check was dishonored, he and co-employee Carlos Garcia went
the proceeds of his loan to Agustin Uy, an officer of com- to petitioner’s residence in Tarlac to inform him about it. Thereafter, petitioner
_______________ wrote a letter dated June 28, 1990 to Atty. Joselito Lim, RBSJ chairman of
18
 Ibid. the Board of Directors, proposing a manner of paying the loan. The letter was
19
 Supra, note 16, at pp. 477-478. referred to the bank manager who sent petitioner another demand
461 letter25 dated September 17, 1990 through registered mail. 26 Said letter
VOL. 442, NOVEMBER 17, 2004 461 informed petitioner of the dishonor of his check for the reason of account
Rigor vs. People closed, and required him to settle his obligation, thus:
plainant bank, to finance Uy’s and his (petitioner) sister’s alleged “side- xxx
banking” activity, such agreement is immaterial to petitioner’s liability for September 17, 1990
issuing the dishonored check under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. Mr. Alfredo Rigor 
Lozano v. Martinez20 states: Victoria, Tarlac
The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and Dear Mr. Rigor,
issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation Please be informed that the check dated February 16, 1990, that you issued
for payment. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law purportedly for the payment of your loan, which has already become due and
punishes. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his demandable in the sum of PESOS: Five Hundred Thousand Pesos Only
debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the (P500,000.00) was dishonored on February 16, 1990 (should be May 25,
making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Because of its 1990) for the reason Account Closed (AC).
deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by the We trust that you will take the necessary step for the early settlement of
law. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an your obligation to us.
offense against public order. _______________
People v. Nitafan21 held that to require that the agreement surrounding the 23
 Sia v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 149695, April 28, 2004, 428
issuance of checks be first looked into and thereafter exempt such issuance SCRA 206.
24
from the provisions of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 on the basis of such  Ibid.
25
agreement or understanding would frustrate the very purpose for which the  Exh. “I”, Records, p. 139.
26
law was enacted.  Exh. “I-2”, Records, p. 140.
Further, the presence of the third element of the offense is shown by the 463
fact that after the check was deposited for encashment, it was dishonored by VOL. 442, NOVEMBER 17, 2004 463
Associated Bank for reason of “closed account” as evidenced by its Check Rigor vs. People
Return Slip.22 Despite receipt of a notice of dishonor from complainant bank, Very truly yours, 
petitioner failed to pay his obligation. MELQUECEDES DE GUZMAN
Petitioner next contends that he did not receive a notice of dishonor, the The transcript of records27 shows that petitioner admitted knowledge of the
absence of which precludes criminal prosecution. dishonor of his check through a demand letter sent to him. Hence, petitioner
The contention is likewise of no merit. cannot pretend that he did not receive a notice of dishonor of his check.
_______________ Lastly, petitioner contends that the Regional Trial Court of Pasig had no
20
 146 SCRA 323, 338 (1986). jurisdiction over this case since no proof has been offered that his check was
21
 215 SCRA 79, 84 (1992).
Page 5 of 6
issued, delivered, dishonored or that knowledge of insufficiency of funds offense, was also overtly manifested in San Juan. There is no question that
occurred in the Municipality of San Juan, Metro Manila. crimes committed in November, 1989 in San Juan are triable by the RTC
The contention is untenable. stationed in Pasig. In short both allegation and proof in this case sufficiently
As regards venue of a criminal action, Section 15, paragraph (a), of Rule vest jurisdiction upon the RTC in Pasig City.34
110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which reflects the old WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court
rule,28 provides: of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR No. 18855, is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against
Sec. 15. Place where action is to be instituted.— petitioner.
(a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and _______________
30
tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the offense was  Id., at pp. 415-416.
31
committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred. (Emphasis  Id., at p. 416.
32
supplied.)  TSN, September 15, 1992, pp. 19-21.
33
Violations of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 are categorized as transitory or  TSN, November 10, 1992, p. 8.
continuing crimes.29 In such crimes, some acts material and essential to the 34
 Supra, note 2, at pp. 41-43.
crimes and requisite to their consummation occur in one municipality or 465
territory and some in another, in which event, the court of either has juris- VOL. 442, NOVEMBER 17, 2004 465
_______________ Felix vs. National Labor Relations Commission
27
 TSN, February 4, 1994, pp. 5-6. SO ORDERED.
28
 The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 110, Sec. 15. Place      Davide, Jr.  (C.J., Chairman), Quisumbing, Ynares-
where action is to be instituted.— Santiago and Carpio, JJ., concur.
(a) Subject to existing laws, in all criminal prosecutions the action shall be Petition denied, assailed decision affirmed.
instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory wherein the Note.—What the law, B.P. Blg. 22, punishes is the issuance of a
offense was committed or any one of the essential ingredients thereof took bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms
place. and conditions relating to its issuance. The mere act of issuing a worthless
29
 Lim v. Court of Appeals, 251 SCRA 408, 416 (1995). check is malum prohibitum. (Wong vs. Court of Appeals, 351 SCRA
464 100 [2001])
464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED ——o0o——
Rigor vs. People © Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
diction to try the cases, it being understood that the first court taking
cognizance of the case excludes the other.30Hence, a person charged with a
transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or territory where the
offense was in part committed.31
The evidence clearly shows that the undated check was issued and
delivered at the Rural Bank of San Juan, Metro Manila 32 on November 16,
1989, and subsequently the check was dated February 16, 1990 thereat. On
May 25, 1990, the check was deposited with PS Bank, San Juan Branch,
Metro Manila.33 Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled:
Violations of B.P. 22 are categorized as transitory or continuing crimes. A suit
on the check can be filed in any of the places where any of the elements of
the offense occurred, that is, where the check is drawn, issued, delivered or
dishonored. x x x
The information at bar effectively charges San Juan as the place of
drawing and issuing. The jurisdiction of courts in criminal cases is determined
by the allegations of the complaint or information. Although, the check was
dishonored by the drawee, Associated Bank, in its Tarlac Branch, appellant
has drawn, issued and delivered it at RBSJ, San Juan. The place of issue
and delivery was San Juan and knowledge, as an essential part of the
Page 6 of 6