FACTS:

In this case, Richard Natividad and his associates purchased construction materials from Armilyn Morillo for their Subic Freeport Zone project. The agreed terms were that a percentage of the purchase should be paid within seven days after the first delivery, and the remaining amount would be paid within thirty-five days after the last delivery, through post-dated checks. However, when Morillo tried to deposit the checks, they were dishonored due to insufficient funds. Morillo made demands for payment, but Natividad failed to comply, leading to a complaint being filed against him. Natividad was charged with the violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. The Metropolitan Trial Court found him guilty and ordered him to pay a fine.

The appeal in this case involves the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati City over a violation of BP 22. The accused, Milo Malong, was acquitted, but both Malong and Natividad were ordered to jointly pay the complainant the face value of the two checks issued. The accused argued that the MeTC of Makati City had no jurisdiction over the case as the checks were issued, drawn, and delivered in Subic. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MeTC's ruling, emphasizing that the violation is a transitory offense and jurisdiction may be had where one of the material acts occurred. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the decision, stating that the case should be filed in Pampanga where all the essential elements of the offense transpired.

The petitioner filed an action against the Court of Appeals, asserting that the MeTC of Makati City had the proper venue. The petitioner cited the ruling in Nieva, Jr. v. Court of Appeals to support this argument. The respondent and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) contended that the MeTC of Makati City did not have jurisdiction. The OSG relied on the ruling in Rigor v. People, asserting that the proper venue should be where the check was issued, delivered, and dishonored. The court clarified that violations of BP 22 are transitory crimes, and any court where an essential act occurred can exercise jurisdiction. The court disagreed with the OSG's reliance on Rigor v. People, stating that the place of deposit and dishonor are not distinct for jurisdiction purposes.

In another case, an accused obtained a loan from Rural Bank and failed to repay it despite multiple demands. Rural Bank filed a case for violation of BP 22 at the RTC of Pasig City. The accused argued that the RTC of Pasig did not have jurisdiction as there was no proof that the check was issued, delivered, dishonored, or that knowledge of insufficient funds occurred in San Juan. The court held that although the check was dishonored by the drawee in its Tarlac Branch, evidence clearly showed that the accused had drawn, issued, and delivered the check at Rural Bank in San Juan.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the place of deposit is the proper venue for cases involving violations of BP 22.

2. Whether the court where any of the essential and material acts of the crime is committed maintains jurisdiction to try the case.

3. Whether the court where the check was deposited or presented for encashment has jurisdiction to try cases involving violations of BP 22.

4. Whether the dismissal of the case by the appellate court operates as an acquittal.

5. Whether the petitioner's use of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is proper.

6. Whether the respondent's right to protection against double jeopardy will be violated.

7. Whether the petitioner's appeal can be barred by double jeopardy.

8. Whether the petitioner has legal standing to file the petition in the absence of the Office of the Solicitor General's participation.

9. Whether the Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, which affirmed the Joint Decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court, was proper.

RULING:

1. The court held that the place of deposit is a proper venue for cases involving violations of BP 22. The court stated that the differentiation between the place of issue and delivery and the place of deposit cannot be taken as a basis to conclude that the court of the place of deposit cannot exercise jurisdiction over violations of BP 22. The court cited the case of Nieva, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, where it was ruled that the court where the check was deposited has jurisdiction over the crime.

2. The court affirmed the principle that the court where any of the essential and material acts of the crime is committed maintains jurisdiction to try the case. It held that violations of BP 22 are transitory or continuing crimes, and can be filed in any place where any of the elements of the offense occurred, such as the place where the check is drawn, issued, delivered, or dishonored.

3. Yes, the court where the check was deposited or presented for encashment can be vested with jurisdiction to try cases involving violations of BP 22. A person charged with a continuing or transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or territory where the offense was in part committed. In this case, even though the check was drawn, issued, and delivered in Pampanga, the Makati Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) correctly took cognizance of the case because the check was deposited and presented for encashment at the Makati branch of Equitable PC Bank.

4. The dismissal of the case by the appellate court does not operate as an acquittal. Acquittal is based on the merits, where the evidence does not prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Dismissal, on the other hand, terminates the proceeding due to various reasons such as lack of jurisdiction or insufficiency of the complaint or information. The only instance where dismissal may be used instead of acquittal is when the court dismisses the case after the prosecution has presented all its evidence and the evidence fails to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, the dismissal by the appellate court was based on the erroneous reasoning that none of the elements of the offense were committed within the jurisdiction of the lower court. Therefore, the dismissal did not operate as an acquittal.

5. The petitioner's use of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is proper. In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, only questions of law are raised because the Court, in its review, does not act as a trier of facts. It is within the bounds of procedural rules to file a petition for review under Rule 45 when the issue raised solely concerns the interpretation of the law in relation to the jurisdiction of courts to entertain complaints.

6. The respondent's right to protection against double jeopardy will not be violated. Since the dismissal of the case does not operate as an acquittal, the respondent cannot claim double jeopardy. The exceptions to double jeopardy provided that an appeal by the prosecution from the order of dismissal by the trial court does not constitute double jeopardy if the dismissal was made upon motion or with the defendant's express consent, the dismissal was not based on the merits, and the question to be passed upon by the appellate court is purely legal. In this case, the dismissal was with the respondent's express consent, the dismissal was not based on the merits, and the question of law concerning jurisdiction was raised.

7. The petitioner's appeal cannot be barred by double jeopardy because the dismissal of the case was not an acquittal or based on a consideration of the merits. The question raised in the case is purely a question of law.

8. The petitioner has legal standing to file the petition even without the participation of the Office of the Solicitor General. The court considered the ends of substantial justice and entertained the petition filed by the private offended party.

9. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Decision and Order of the Regional Trial Court, which affirmed the Joint Decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court, were reinstated.

PRINCIPLES:

• The court of the place of deposit has jurisdiction over violations of BP 22.

• Violations of BP 22 are transitory or continuing crimes, and can be filed in any place where any of the elements of the offense occurred.

• Jurisdiction over crimes categorized as transitory or continuing crimes is vested in any municipality or territory where any of the elements of the crime occurred.

• A person charged with a continuing or transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or territory where the offense was in part committed.

• A dismissal of a criminal case is different from an acquittal of the accused, except in cases based on a demurrer to evidence or violation of the accused's right to a speedy trial.

• Acquittal is based on the merits and is a result of the evidence not proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Dismissal, on the other hand, terminates the proceeding for various reasons.

• Dismissal of a case does not operate as an acquittal unless it is based on a consideration of the merits and the evidence fails to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

• A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is proper when the issue raised solely concerns the interpretation of the law in relation to the jurisdiction of courts.

• Double jeopardy does not apply when the dismissal of a case does not constitute an acquittal and is based on a purely legal question.

• A dismissal of a case that is not an acquittal or based on the merits does not bar an appeal and invoke double jeopardy.

• The court may consider the ends of substantial justice and entertain a petition filed by the private offended party even without the participation of the Office of the Solicitor General.

• A void order is no order at all and cannot confer any right or provide relief.

• The court is not only a court of law but also a court of justice.

• A party cannot be left without recourse to address a substantive issue in law.

• Procedural rules should be tools to facilitate a fair and orderly conduct of proceedings and should be liberally construed as long as their purpose is met and no violation of due process and fair play occurs.

• Dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon, and rules of procedure should be used to secure, not override, substantial justice.

• The Supreme Court has the power to reverse the decisions of lower courts when there is a miscarriage of justice.