You are on page 1of 2

CONFUSION IN DETERMINING

VENUE FOR VIOLATION OF BP


BLG. 22
MB CAMPANILLA·SUNDAY, JANUARY 22, 2017

The venue of a criminal action is the place where the crime was committed or
where any of the elements of a crime took place. Since issuance of the check and
dishonor thereof are elements of violation of BP Blg. 22, the offended party can
institute criminal action either in the place where the check was issued or the
place where it was dishonored (People vs. Grospe, G.R. No. 74053, January 20,
1988).

If the check was deposited in the bank upon which the check was drawn, the
place of dishonor as an alternative venue is identifiable. However, if the check
was deposited in the bank other than the one upon which the check was drawn,
the place of dishonor is jurisprudentially difficult to determine. In this situation,
there are two banks involved, the one where the check was deposited and that
upon which the check was drawn. To determine the place of dishonor for
purposes of venue, there is a need to identify which of the two banks dishonored
the check, the drawee bank or the depositary bank.

There are two views regarding this issue. The first view is that the bank where the
check was deposited is the one that dishonored the check. Hence, the place where
the check was deposited is a proper venue. The second view is that the bank upon
which the check was drawn is the one which dishonored the check. Hence, the
place where the drawee bank is located is a proper venue.

In People vs. Grospe, G.R. No. 74053, January 20, 1988, the checks were drawn
upon Planters Development Bank, Bulacan but deposited in BPI, Pampanga. It
was held that Pampanga, the place where the checks were deposited is a proper
venue for violation of BP Blg. 22. This is the first view.
In Lim vs. CA, G.R. No. 107898, December 19, 1995, the check was drawn upon
Solidbank, Kalookan City but deposited in Rizal Commercial Bank Corporation.
It was held that Kalookan City, the place where the drawee bank is located, is a
proper venue for violation of BP Blg. 22. This is the second view.

In Nieva, Jr. vs. CA, G.R. No. 95796-97, May 2, 1997, the check was drawn upon
Commercial Bank of Manila, Quezon City but deposited in BPI at Angeles City. It
was held that Angeles City, the place where the check was deposited is a proper
venue for violation of BP Blg. 22. In sum, the Supreme Court reverted back to the
first view.

In Rigor vs. People, G.R. No. 144887, November 17, 2004, the check was drawn
upon Associated Bank, Tarlac but deposited in PS Bank, San Juan. It was held
that Tarlac, the place where the drawee bank is located, is a proper venue for
violation of BP Blg. 22. In sum, the Supreme Court returned to the second view.

In Yalong vs. People, GR No. 187174, August 28, 2013, the check was drawn upon
Export and Industry Bank, Manila but deposited in LBC Bank, Batangas. It was
held that Batangas, the place where the check was deposited, is a proper venue
for violation of BP Blg. 22. In sum, the Supreme Court for the second time
reverted back to the first view.