View full case

MANUEL LIM v. CA

FACTS:

Spouses Manuel Lim and Rosita Lim were charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malabon with estafa and violation of B.P. Blg. 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law. The charges were based on the allegations that the Lims, in conspiracy, purchased goods from Linton Commercial Company, Inc. and issued Consolidated Bank and Trust Company checks as payment. However, when presented for payment, the checks were dishonored due to stopped payment and insufficiency of funds. Despite repeated demands, the Lims failed to pay the checks or the value of the goods. The Lims were the president and treasurer of Rigi Bilt Industries, Inc. and had been transacting business with Linton for years. The Lims ordered various amounts of goods, including steel plates and purlin sticks, and issued Solidbank checks as payment. The checks were dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds. The Lims admitted issuing the checks but claimed that their company's account had sufficient funds and they ordered payment to be stopped because the delivered goods were not in accordance with the specifications. The trial court found the Lims guilty of estafa and violation of B.P. Blg. 22, and imposed penalties and ordered them to indemnify Linton in different amounts. On appeal, the Court of Appeals acquitted the Lims of estafa but affirmed their guilt for violating B.P. Blg. 22. The Lims filed a petition claiming that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction as the offenses were committed in Kalookan City, not in Malabon.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the case.

  2. Whether the checks were properly issued and delivered to the payee.

  3. Whether the petitioners paid the amounts due on the checks or made arrangements for payment within five (5) banking days as required by B.P. Blg. 22.

  4. Whether the Regional Trial Court of Malabon had jurisdiction over the cases.

  5. Whether or not the petitioner's arguments are meritorious.

  6. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the trial court's judgment.

RULING:

  1. The trial court had jurisdiction over the case. The offense charged in violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is a transitory crime, which means that it may be validly tried in any municipality or territory where the offense was in part committed. In this case, while the checks were issued and delivered in Navotas, they were dishonored in Kalookan City. Therefore, the court in Kalookan City has jurisdiction to try the case.

  2. The checks were not properly issued and delivered to the payee. Although the checks were received by a collector of the payee in Kalookan City, they were actually issued and delivered to the payee at its place of business in Balut, Navotas. The collector was not the person who could take the checks as a holder, i.e., as a payee or indorsee thereof. Therefore, the issuance and delivery of the checks to the collector did not fix the venue in Kalookan City.

  3. The petitioners did not pay the amounts due on the checks or make arrangements for payment within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that the checks had not been paid by the drawee bank. Thus, the prima facie evidence of their knowledge of the insufficiency of funds was not overcome. Their conviction for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is affirmed.

  4. The Informations alleged that the offenses were committed in the Municipality of Navotas. Therefore, jurisdiction lies with the Regional Trial Court of Malabon. The conviction by the said court is upheld.

  5. The Supreme Court affirmed the Resolution denying the petitioner's motion for reconsideration and upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals. The costs of the case were also imposed on the petitioners.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Venue in criminal cases is a vital ingredient of jurisdiction.

  • In transitory crimes, the court where any essential ingredient of the offense took place has jurisdiction.

  • Delivery is the final act essential to the consummation of a negotiable instrument as an obligation.

  • The issuance and delivery of a check must be to a person who takes it as a holder, i.e., the payee or indorsee with intent to transfer title thereto.

  • The receipt of checks by a collector does not constitute issuance and delivery to the payee in contemplation of law.

  • Failure to pay the amounts due on checks or make arrangements for payment within five (5) banking days after receiving notice of dishonor is considered prima facie evidence of knowledge of the insufficiency of funds. (People v. Grospe, People v. Manzanilla)

  • Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the Information, and if the offense was allegedly committed in a specific municipality, the Regional Trial Court of that municipality has jurisdiction. (Grospe and Manzanilla cases as reiterated in Lim v. Rodrigo)

  • The Supreme Court has the power to review decisions of lower courts, including the Court of Appeals and trial courts.

  • A motion for reconsideration may be filed to seek a review or alteration of a decision or resolution of a court.

  • The Supreme Court imposes costs on parties as a form of penalty or to defray expenses related to the case.