Baysa, Samantha George L.

I-Iñigo
June 18, 2019

CABRAL v BRACAMONTE
G.R No. 233174, January 23, 2019

Petitioner, Ruel Francis M. Cabral, petitioned to the Supreme Court after the CA denied
his Motion for Reconsideration. CA overruled the decision of the RTC of Parañaque City to deny
the Motion to Quash the Information charging Chris Bracamonte with estafa. The Court denied the
petition because the petitioner filed it without the participation of the Office of the Solicitor
General. Futhermore, according to the appellate court, all the elements of crime (worthless check
issuance and delivery and the place where the check was dishonored) were made in Makati City.
The Court ruled that the RTC of Parañaque has no jurisdiction over the case because there were no
offenses made within Parañaque.

Respondent, Bracamonte, and Petitioner, Cabral, signed a MOA in Makati City for the
purchase of shares of stock in Wellcross Freight Corporation and Aviver International Corporation.
After signing the MOA, Bracamonte issued a postdated check to Cabral in the amount of
P12,667,950.15. When the petitioner presented the check for payment, a bank in Makati dishonored
it for lack of sufficient funds. The petitioner then filed a complaint for estafa in Parañaque City
because according to him, estafa is a continuing or transitory offense which may be brought to court
where any of the essential elements of the crime took place. Therefore, its elements of deceit and
damage may arise in separate places.

The respondent contended that the RTC of Parañaque does not have jurisdiction over the
case. The signing of the MOA and the issuance and delivery of the check was held in Makati.
Although the RTC denied his Motion to Quash the information, the CA overruled the decision and
dismissed the information against him. The RTC of Parañaque has no jurisdiction over the place
because the there were no offenses made in the said city.