G.R. No.

117488 September 5, 1996

SANTIAGO IBASCO, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Facts:
1) Ibasco and his wife (from Daet, Camarines Norte), came to the Trivinios at Sitio Seawall, Bgy. Camohaguin,
Gumaca, Quezon and requested credit accommodation for the supply of ingredients in the manufacture of
animal feeds. In accordance with the agreed credit arrangement, the Trivinios made three delivered of darak
and postdated checks were issued. The checks were denied when presented in court due to lack of fund.
2) Trivinios submitted notice of demand but the accused-appellant replied by telegram offering his real
property in Daet as security. But the Trivinios did not like the property because it was across the sea, so the
case was filed.
3) The original records of the aforementioned criminal cases show that after the presentation of the evidence for
both parties had been concluded, the trial court required the parties to submit their respective memoranda.
However, before submitting his memorandum, the petitioner's new counsel filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction.
4) The court favored the testimony of Trivinios that the check was delivered to their residence in Quezon, thus
justifying the jurisdiction of the court. Ibasco appealed the case to CA. CA affirmed in toto the decision of
the lower court.
Issues:
1) Whether or not there is lack of jurisdiction.
2) Whether or not the accused can be prosecuted for violation of BP 22, when the checks were only issued as
guarantee for the delivery of the feeds.
Held:
1) The court recognizes the testimony of the Trivianos tghat the check was delivered to them in Quezon.
Knowledge is by itself, a continuing eventuality, whether the accused be within one territory or another.
Jurisdiction or venue is determined by the allegations in the information. In the case at bench it appears that
the three (3) checks were deposited in Lucena City, so jurisdiction is justified.
2) Ibasco failed to distinguish a violation of B.P. Blg. 22 from estafa. Accommodation pertains to an
arrangement made as a favor to another, not upon a consideration received. On the other hand, guarantee
refers to a promise to answer the debt of another, in case the latter should fail to do so. 33 Neither occurred in
this case.