IBASCO V.

CA

261 SCRA 449 (1996)

FACTS:

Accused-appellant Santiago Ibasco and his wife came to the residence of complainant spouses Maria
Negro Trivinio and her late husband Manuel Trivinio in Gumaca, Quezon to request supply of ingredients
in the manufacture of animal feeds. The Trivinios made 3 deliveries of darak amounting to P51, 566.49
and Ibasco issued 3 postdated checks drawn against United Coconut Planters Bank, Daet Branch. Upon
presentment, the checks bounced due to insufficient funds. The Trivinios notified Ibasco of the dishonor
and Ibasco offered his real property in Daet, Camarines Norte as security. The Trivinios arrived in Daet to
inspect the property but upon informing them that the same is across the sea, the Trivinios did not
anymore bothered to inspect. They filed a case of violation of BP 22 against Ibasco in RTC-Gumaca,
Quezon.

In the proceedings before the trial court, petitioner’s counsel filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction since, the checks were "prepared, issued and delivered to the payee . . . at the office
of the accused in Daet, Camarines Norte." The motion was denied and RTC-Gumaca convicted Ibasco as
the checks were delivered at their residence in Gumaca, Quezon by the accused. CA affirmed the
decision in toto as "the determinative factor (in determining venue) is the place of the issuance of the
check." However, it is likewise true that knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of the check of
the insufficiency of his funds, which is an essential ingredient of the offense is by itself a continuing
eventuality, whether the accused be within one territory or another”

Ibasco filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not RTC-Gumaca, Quezon has jurisdiction over the case

RULING:

Yes. Violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is in the nature of a continuing crime. Venue is determined by the place
where the elements of making, issuing, or drawing of the check and delivery thereof are committed.
Thus, as explained in People v. Yabut," [t]he theory is that a person indicted with a transitory offense
may be validly tried in any jurisdiction where the offense was in part committed. . . . The place where
the bills were written, signed, or dated does not necessarily fix or determine the place where they
were executed. What is of decisive importance is the delivery thereof. The delivery of the instrument
is the final act essential to its consummation as an obligation."

In her testimony, Maria Negro categorically stated that the three checks were delivered by the
petitioner to their residence in Gumaca, Quezon.

Besides, it is not without convincing reason to believe that delivery of the checks was in fact made at
Gumaca, Quezon, it being the place of business of the late Manuel Trivinio and from where the animal
feeds were delivered. Consequently, payment should be considered effected at Gumaca, Quezon.