People v.

Nathaniel Gorospe (RTC Pampanga Judge) and Manuel Parulan

Nos. 74053-54 / 20 January 1988
Melencio-Herrera, J. / kmd
Topic: Crimes against property; swindling
Summary:
In this case, Parulan was charged with Estafa and violation of BP 22 for issuing two checks in favor of San Miguel
Corp. These checks were dishonored for being drawn against insufficient funds. The respondent judge of RTC Pampanga
dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because according to him the elements of the offenses took place in Bulacan
therefore Bulacan Court should have jurisdiction. However, the SC ruled that both Pampanga and Bulacan Courts may
take cognizance of the Estafa and BP 22 violation cases. In Estafa, damage occurred in Bulacan while deceit occurred in
Pampanga. In Violation of BP 22, the checks were issued in Bulacan, but the possession of knowledge of insufficient
funds is by itself continuing eventuality, thus Court of Pampanga may also take cognizance of the case.
Doctrine:
 Deceit and damage which are essential elements of the offense of estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check must
be proved.
 Essential element of Violation of B.P. 22 is knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of the check of the
insufficiency of his funds; Mere act of issuing a worthless check is a special offense punishable by the AntiBouncing
Checks Laws and the offense is malum prohibitum; Gravamen of offense is issuance of a check, not payment of an
obligation.
 Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check may be a transitory or continuing offense, and its basic elements of deceit
and damage may arise independently in separate places.
 Delivery of instrument is the final act essential to the consummation of an obligation. Issuance as well as delivery of
the check must be to a person who takes it as a holder or the bearer thereof.
 Determinative factor in determining venue is the place of issuance of the check; 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.
Facts:
 Respondentaccused, Manuel Parulan, is an authorized wholesale dealer of petitioner San Miguel Corporation
(SMC) in Bulacan.
 1st Criminal Case (No. 2800):
o Accused was charged with Violation of the Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22) for having issued a check
on 13 June 1983 for P86,071.20 in favor of SMC which was dishonored for having been drawn against
“insufficient funds” and, in spite of repeated demands, for having failed and refused to make good said
check to the damage and prejudice of SMC.
 2 Criminal Case (No. 2813)
nd

o Accused was charged with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code for
having made out a check on 18 June 1983 in the sum of P11,918.80 in favor of SMC in payment of beer
he had purchased, but which check was refused payment for “insufficient funds” and, in spite of repeated
demands, for having failed and refused to redeem said check to the damage and prejudice of SMC.
 RTC: Respondent judge dismissed both cases for being “bereft of jurisdiction to pass judgment on the accused on
the basis of the merits of the cases.”
o According to respondent judge, in order for the court to have jurisdiction, both or any of the essential
elements of offenses charged must occur within the area of jurisdiction. In this case, deceit and/or
damage, essential elements of offenses involving dishonored checks, must occur within San Fernando
Pampanga (respondent judge’s area).
o On DECEIT: Checks were issued and signed by the accused at SMC sales office in Guiguinto, Bulacan
and were delivered to Ruben Cornelio of SMC whose office was also in Guiguinto Bulacan. It was in his
office where the accused made assurances that the checks issued were good and backed by
suffiecient funds in his bank.
o On DAMAGE: SMC deposited the issued checks at BPI, San Fernando, Pampanga. These checks were
dishonored by the Planters Development Bank Bulacan, and so BPI made deductions from SMC’s
account in the amounts covered by the dishonored checks. However, damage was inflicted on the SMC
right at the moment and at the place where the checks were dishonored which is in Bulacan.
 o Since both deceit and damage took place in Bulacan, respondent judge of RTC Pampanga has no
jurisdiction over the cases.
Issues:
1. WON the RTC erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. YES
Holding:
1. Yes the court erred in dismissing the case as both Pampanga and Bulacan Courts may take cognizance of the
Estafa and BP 22 violation cases.

There are 2 checks involved, each subject to different penal laws and with different elements.

CHECK no. 1 CHECK no. 2

Subject to violation of BP 22 Subject to estafa under Art. 315, RPC
Essential element: Essential elements:
1. Knowledge of the insufficiency of funds on the 1. postdating or issuing a bad check
part of the maker/drawer of check. 2. deceit –
*deceit and damage are NOT essential nor required 3. damage
*mere act of issuing a worthless check is punishable *estafa may be a transitory or continuing offense.
*malice and intent in issuing are immaterial, the offense *deceit and damage may arise independently in
being malum prohibitum separate places
*gravamen of the offense is the issuance and not the
non-payment of obligation

Revised Rules of Court Rule 110, SEC. 14. Place where action is to be instituted.—
(a) In all criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province wherein
the offense was committed or any one of the essential ingredients thereof took place.”

In the case of Estafa, deceit took place in Pampanga where it was uttered and delivered. Meanwhile, damage was
inflicted in Bulacan where the check was dishonored by the drawee bank (Philippine Developmental Bank). Hence,
jurisdiction may be entertained by either Bulacan Court or Pampanga Court.
---Decisive factor is delivery. Delivery of the instrument is the final act essential to its consummation as an obligation.
Delivery of the check to the sales supervisor/representative at SMC office Bulacan did not consummate the act. The rule
is that the issuance as well as the delivery of the check must be to a person who takes it as a holder, which means “the
payee or indorsee of a bill or note, who is in possession of it, or the bearer, thereof”. Thus, said representative had to
forward the check to the SMC Regional Office in San Fernando, Pampanga, which was delivered to the Finance Officer
thereat who, in turn, deposited it at the SMC depository bank in San Fernando, Pampanga.

In the case of violation of BP 22, determinative factor is the place of issuance of the check. The check was issued in
Bulacan, therefore Bulacan Court has jurisdiction. However, the knowledge of the insufficiency of funds on the part of the
maker is a continuing eventuality, whether the accused be within one territory or another. Accordingly, Pampanga Court
may also take cognizance of the case.

Respondent judge has jurisdiction to try and decide the subject criminal case. He is hereby ordered to reassume
jurisdiction over the 2 cases and render judgment of conviction or acquittal.