G.R. No.

87416 April 8, 1991

CECILIO S. DE VILLA vs. CA

FACTS:

On October 5, 1987, petitioner Cecilio S. de Villa was charged before the RTC Branch 145, Makati with violation of Batas
Pambansa Bilang 22. Petitioner allegedly issued a check payable to private respondent, Roberto Lorayez, in the total amount of
U.S. $2,500.00 equivalent to P50,000.00 knowing that at the time of issue he had no sufficient funds in or credit with drawee
bank for payment of such check in full upon its presentment. The check was dishonored by the drawee bank upon presentment
for the reason “insufficient funds.” Petitioner failed to pay respondent despite receipt of notice of such dishonor.

Petitioner moved to dismiss the information maintaining that the court had no jurisdiction over the offense charged since the
check was payable in dollars (foreign currency) and drawn against a foreign bank.

The RTC denied the motion to dismiss for lack of merit. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but his motion was subsequently
denied by the RTC.

The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA seeking to declare the nullity of RTC orders. The Court of Appeals
dismissed the petition. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied by the CA. Thus, petitioner filed petition with
SC.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the Regional Trial Court of Makati has jurisdiction over the case in question.

2. Whether or not a check drawn against the dollar account with a foreign bank is covered by BP Blg. 22

RULING:

The Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit.

I. WON RTC has jurisdiction

The RTC has jurisdiction over the case.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the statute in force at the time of commencement of the action.

The Rules of Court provide that “in all criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the
municipality or territory where the offense was committed or any of the essential ingredients thereof took place.”

The court also stated that jurisdiction or venue is determined by the allegations in the information.

In this particular case, the information filed against petitioner specifically alleged that the offense was committed in Makati, and
therefore, the same is controlling and sufficient to vest jurisdiction upon the RTC of Makati. The Court acquires jurisdiction over
the case and over the person of the accused upon the filing of a complaint or information in court which initiates a criminal
action.

Moreover, in the case of Que v. People of the Philippines, the court held that the determinative factor in determining venue is
the place of the issuance of the check.

On the matter of venue for violation of BP 22, the Ministry of Justice laid down the following guidelines the pertinent portion of
which reads:
 (1) Venue of the offense lies at the place where the check was executed and delivered;

(2) the place where the check was written, signed or dated does not necessarily fix the place where it was executed, as what is
of decisive importance is the delivery thereof which is the final act essential to its consummation as an obligation

It is undisputed that the check in question was executed and delivered by the petitioner to private respondent at Makati.

II. WON a check drawn against the dollar account with a foreign bank is covered by BP Blg. 22

The court ruled that under the B.P. Blg. 22, foreign checks, provided they are either drawn and issued in the Philippines though
payable outside thereof are within the coverage of said law.

It is a cardinal principle in statutory construction that where the law does not distinguish courts should not distinguish and
where the law does not make any exception, courts may not except something unless compelling reasons exist to justify it. And
where there is doubt as to what a provision of a statute means, the meaning put to the provision during the legislative
deliberation or discussion on the bill may be adopted.

The records of the Batasan, Vol. III, unmistakably show that the intention of the lawmakers is to apply BP Blg. 22 to whatever
currency may be the subject thereof.