KNOWLEDGE OF INSUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS

"Sec. 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. --- The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee."

In other words, the prima facie presumption arises when a check is issued. But the law also provides that the presumption does not arise when the issuer pays the amount of the check or makes arrangement for its payment "within five banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee." Verily, BP 22 gives the accused an opportunity to satisfy the amount indicated in the check and thus avert prosecution. As the Court held in Lozano v. Martinez, the aforecited provision serves to "mitigate the harshness of the law in its application."22 [146 SCRA 324, December 18, 1986, per Yap, CJ.] This opportunity, however, can be used only upon receipt by the accused of a notice of dishonor. This point was underscored by the Court in Lina Lim Lao v. Court of Appeals:23 [274 SCRA 572, 594, June 20, 1997, per Panganiban, J. Citations omitted.]  

"It has been observed that the State, under this statute, actually offers the violator ‘a compromise by allowing him to perform some act which operates to preempt the criminal action, and if he opts to perform it the action is abated.’ This was also compared ‘to certain laws allowing illegal possessors of firearms a certain period of time to surrender the illegally possessed firearms to the Government, without incurring any criminal liability.’ In this light, the full payment of the amount appearing in the check within five banking days from notice of dishonor is a ‘complete defense.’ The absence of a notice of dishonor necessarily deprives an accused an opportunity to preclude a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, procedural due process clearly enjoins that a notice of dishonor be actually served on petitioner. Petitioner has a right to demand – and the basic postulates of fairness require -- that the notice of dishonor be actually sent to and received by her to afford her the opportunity to avert prosecution under BP 22."

Thus, in order to create the prima facie presumption that the issuer knew of the insufficiency of funds, it must be shown that he or she received a notice of dishonor and, within five banking days thereafter, failed to satisfy the amount of the check or make arrangement for its payment.

To prove that petitioner knew of the insufficiency of her funds, the prosecution presented Exhibits "Q" to "T." Based on these documents, the Court of Appeals concluded that "[p]rivate complainant sent a demand letter to appellant to make good said checks x x x. Appellant failed to pay the face value of the eleven checks or make arrangement for the full payment thereof within 90 days after receiving the notice."24 [CA Decision, p. 11; rollo, p. 62.]

Upon closer examination of these documents, we find no evidentiary basis for the holding of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that petitioner received a notice that the checks had been dishonored.

True, complainant sent petitioner a registered mail, as shown in Exhibit "Q", informing the latter that the checks had been dishonored. But the records show that petitioner did not receive it. In fact, Postmaster Wilfredo Ulibarri’s letter addressed to complainant’s counsel certified that the "subject registered mail was returned to sender on September 22, 1992 x x x."25 [Exhibit "T," Records, p. 20.]

Notwithstanding the clear import of the postmaster’s certification, the prosecution failed to adduce any other proof that petitioner received the post office notice but unjustifiably refused to claim the registered mail. It is possible that the drawee bank sent petitioner a notice of dishonor, but the prosecution did not present evidence that the bank did send it, or that petitioner actually received it. It was also possible that she was trying to flee from complainant by staying in different addresses. Speculations and possibilities, however, cannot take the place of proof. Conviction must rest on proof beyond reasonable doubt. Clearly, the evidence on hand demonstrates the indelible fact that petitioner did not receive notice that the checks had been dishonored. Necessarily, the presumption that she knew of the insufficiency of funds cannot arise.

Justice Panganiban, Third Division King v. People, G.R. No. 131540, December 2, 1999

In the case at bench petitioners maintain that the prosecution failed to prove that any of the essential elements of the crime punishable under B.P. Blg. 22 was committed within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon. They claim that what was proved was that all the elements of the offense were committed in Kalookan City. The checks were issued at their place of business, received by a collector of LINTON, and dishonored by the drawee bank, all in Kalookan City. Furthermore, no evidence whatsoever supports the proposition that they knew that their checks were insufficiently funded. In fact, some of the checks were funded at the time of presentment but dishonored nonetheless upon their instruction to the bank to stop payment. In fine, considering that the checks were all issued, delivered, and dishonored in Kalookan City, the trial court of Malabon exceeded its jurisdiction when it tried the case and rendered judgment thereon.

The petition has no merit. Section 1, par. 1, of B.P. Blg. 22 punishes "[a]ny person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment. . .." The gravamen of the offense is knowingly issuing a worthless check  19 [Cruz V. MC, G.R. No. 66327, 28 May 1984, 129 SCRA 490] Thus, a fundamental element is knowledge on the part of the drawer of the insufficiency of his funds in  20 [Lozano V. Martinez, G.R. No. 63419, 18 December 1986, 146 SCRA 323; Dingle v. IAC, G.R. No. 75243, 16 March 1987, 148 SCRA 595] or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon presentment. Another essential element is subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.  21 [People v. Manzanilla, G.R. Nos. 66003-04, 11 December 1987, 156 SCRA 279]

It is settled that venue in criminal cases is a vital ingredient of jurisdiction.  22 [Lopez v. City Judge, No. l-25795, 29 October 1966, 18 SCRA; U.S. v. Pagadayuman, 5 Phil. 265 (1905); U.S. v. Reyes, 1 Phil. 249 (1902); Ragpala v. J.P. of Tubo, Lanao, 109 Phil. 265 (1905); Agbayani v. Sayo, No. L-47889, 30 April 1979, 89 SCRA 699] Section 14, par. (a), Rule 110, of the Revised Rules of Court, which has been carried over in Sec. 15, par. (a), Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, specifically provides:

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.

If all the acts material and essential to the crime and requisite of its consummation occurred in one municipality or territory, the court therein has the sole jurisdiction to try the case.  23 [People v. Yabut, No. L-42902, 29 April 1977, 76 SCRA 624]There are certain crimes in which some acts material and essential to the crimes and requisite to their consummation occur in one municipality or territory and some in another, in which event, the court of either has jurisdiction to try the cases, it being understood that the first court taking cognizance of the case excludes the other.   24 [Tuzon v. Cruz, No. L-27410, 28 August 1975, 66 SCRA 235]These are the so-called transitory or continuing crimes under which violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is categorized. In other words, a person charged with a transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or territory where the offense was in part committed. 25 [People v. Grospe, G.R. Nos. 7405-54, 20 January 1988, 157 SCRA 154]

In determining proper venue in these cases, the following acts material and essential to each crime and requisite to its consummation must be considered: (a) the seven (7) checks were issued to LINTON at its place of business in Balut, Navotas; (b) they were delivered to LINTON at the same place; (c) they were dishonored in Kalookan City; and, (d) petitioners had knowledge of the insufficiency of their funds in SOLIDBANK at the time the checks were issued. Since there is no dispute that the checks were dishonored in Kaloocan City, it is no longer necessary to discuss where the checks were dishonored.

Under Sec. 191 of the Negotiable Instruments Law the term "issue" means the first delivery of the instrument complete in form to a person who takes it as a holder. On the other hand, the term "holder" refers to the payee or indorsee of a b- or note who is in possession of it or the bearer thereof. In People v. Yabut  26 [Note 23, p. 629] this Court explained —

. . . 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. An undelivered bill or note is inoperative. Until delivery, the contract is revocable. And the issuance as well as the delivery of the check must be to a person who takes it as a holder, which means '(t)he payee or indorsee of a bill or note, who is in possession of it, or the bearer thereof.' Delivery of the check signifies transfer of possession, whether actual or constructive, from one person to another with intent to transfer title thereto . . .

Although LINTON sent a collector who received the checks from petitioners at their place of business in Kalookan City, they were actually issued and delivered to LINTON at its place of business in Balut, Navotas. The receipt of the checks by the collector of LINTON is not the issuance and delivery to the payee in contemplation of law. The collector was not the person who could take the checks as a holder, i.e., as a payee or indorsee thereof, with the intent to transfer title thereto. Neither could the collector be deemed an agent of LINTON with respect to the checks because he was a mere employee. As this Court further explained in People v. Yabut  27 [1d., p.630] —

Modesto Yambao's receipt of the bad checks from Cecilia Oue Yabut or Geminiano Yabut, Jr., in Caloocan City cannot, contrary to the holding of the respondent Judges, be licitly taken as delivery of the checks to the complainant Alida P. Andan at Caloocan City to fix the venue there. He did not take delivery of the checks as holder, i.e., as 'payee' or 'indorsee.' And there appears to be no contract of agency between Yambao and Andan so as to bind the latter for the acts of the former. Alicia P. Andan declared in that sworn testimony before the investigating fiscal that Yambao is but her 'messenger' or 'part-time employee.' There was no special fiduciary relationship that permeated their dealings. For a contract of agency to exist, the consent of both parties is essential. The principal consents that the other party, the agent, shall act on his behalf, and the agent consents so as to act. It must exist as a fact. The law makes no presumption thereof. The person alleging it has the burden of proof to show, not only the fact of its existence, but also its nature and extent . . .

Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 establishes a prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds as follows —

The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the bank because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes arrangement for payment in full by the drawee of such check within five (5) barking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.

The prima facie evidence has not been overcome by petitioners in the cases before us because they did not pay LINTON the amounts due on the checks; neither did they make arrangements for payment in full by the drawee bank within five (5) banking days after receiving notices that the checks had not been paid by the drawee bank. In People v. Grospe  28 [See Note 25] citing People v. Manzanilla  29 See Note 21. we held that ". . . knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of the check of the insufficiency of his funds is by itself a continuing eventuality, whether the accused be within one territory or another."

Consequently, venue or jurisdiction lies either in the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City or Malabon. Moreover, we ruled in the same Grospe and Manzanilla cases as reiterated in Lim V. Rodrigo  30 [G.R. No. 76974, 18 November 1988, 167 SCRA 487] that venue or jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the Information. The Informations in the cases under consideration allege that the offenses were committed in the Municipality of Navotas which is controlling and sufficient to vest jurisdiction upon the Regional Trial Court of Malabon.  31 Adm. Order No. 3 defines the territorial jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts in the National Capital Judicial Region by, inter aljci, establishing two branches over the municipalities of Malabon and Navotas with seats in Malabon.

We therefore sustain likewise the conviction of petitioners by the Regional Trial Court of Malabon for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 thus —

Accused-appellants claim that they ordered payment of the checks to be stopped because the goods delivered were not those specified by them. They maintain that they had sufficient funds to cover the amount of the checks. The records of the bank, however, reveal otherwise. The two letters (Exhs. 21 and 22) dated July 23, and August 10, 1983 which they claim they sent to Linton Commercial, complaining against the quality of the goods delivered by the latter, did not refer to the delivery of mild steel plates (6 mm x 4 x 8) and "Z" purlins (16 x 7 x 2-1/2 mts) for which the checks in question were issued. Rather, the letters referred to B.1. Lally columns (Sch. #20), which were the subject of other purchase orders.

It is true, as accused-appellants point out, that in a case brought by them against the complainant in the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City (Civil Case No. C-10921) the complainant was held liable for actual damages because of the delivery of goods of inferior quality (Exh. 23). But the supplies involved in that case were those of B.1. pipes, while the purchases made by accused-appellants, for which they issued the checks in question, were purchases of mild steel plates and "Z" purlins.

Indeed, the only question here is whether accused-appellants maintained funds sufficient to cover the amounts of their checks at the time of issuance and presentment of such checks. Section 3 of B.P. Big. 22 provides that 'notwithstanding receipt of an order to stop payment, the drawee bank shall state in the notice of dishonor that there were no sufficient funds in or credit with such bank for the payment in full of the check, if such be the fact.'

The purpose of this provision is precisely to preclude the maker or drawer of a worthless check from ordering the payment of the check to be stopped as a pretext for the lack of sufficient funds to cover the check.

In the case at bar, the notice of dishonor issued by the drawee bank, indicates not only that payment of the check was stopped but also that the reason for such order was that the maker or drawer did not have sufficient funds with which to cover the checks. . . . Moreover, the bank ledger of accused-appellants' account in Consolidated Bank shows that at the time the checks were presented for encashment, the balance of accused-appellants' account was inadequate to cover the amounts of the checks.  32 [Court of Appeals Decision, pp. 1-17; Rollo, pp. 54-55]

xxx                    xxx                    xxx

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated 18 September 1992 affirming the conviction of petitioners Manuel Lim and Rosita Lim —

Justice Bellosillo, FIRST DIVISION, MANUEL LIM and ROSITA LIM, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents, G.R. No. 107898.  December 19, 1995

"Section 2.            Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. - The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee." (Emphasis supplied.)

In other words the presence of the first and third elements of the offense constitutes prima facie evidence that the second element exists. The maker's knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds is legally presumed from the dishonor of his check for insufficiency of funds. This Court has ruled that:

"Violation of the bad checks act is committed when one 'makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds' or 'having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank . . . shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank.'" (People vs. Manzanilla, 156 SCRA 279, 282.)

The gravamen of the offense under B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentment for payment. The law has made the mere act of issuing a bum check a malum prohibitum, an act proscribed by legislature for being deemed pernicious and inimical to public welfare. (Lozano vs. Martinez, Lobaton vs. Cruz, Datuin vs. Pano, Violago vs. Pano, Abad vs. Gerochi, Aguiluz vs. Isnani, Hojas vs. Peñaranda, People vs. Nitafan, G.R. Nos. L-63419, 66839-42, 71654, 74524-25, 75122-49, 75812-13, 75765-67 & 75789, December 18, 1986, 146 SCRA 323).

Justice Grino-Aquino, FIRST DIVISION, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. PEDRO G. LAGGUI, Presiding Judge of Branch XXXIV of the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga and ELISEO SORIANO, respondents, G.R. Nos. 76262-63.  March 16, 1989.

Insisting on her innocence, Paz Dingle filed the instant petition contending that she did not incur any criminal liability under BP 22 because she had no knowledge of the dishonor of the checks issued by her husband and for that matter even the transaction of her husband with Ang.

The Solicitor General in his Memorandum recommended that petitioner be acquitted of the instant charge because from the testimony of the sole prosecution witness Ernesto Ang, it was established that he dealt exclusively with Nestor Ang. Nowhere in his testimony is the name of Paz Dingle ever mentioned in connection with the transaction and with the issuance of the check. In fact, Ang categorically stated that it was Nestor Dingle who received his two (2) letters of demand. This lends credence to the testimony of Paz Dingle that she signed the questioned checks in blank together with her husband without any knowledge of its issuance, much less of the transaction and the fact of dishonor. 

In the case of Florentino Lozano vs. Hon. Martinez, promulgated December 18, 1986, it was held that an essential element of the offense is knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of the check of the insufficiency of his funds.

Justice Para, SECOND DIVISION, PAZ M. DINGLE, petitioner, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents, [G.R. No. 75243.  March 16, 1987.]

Another provision of the statute, also in the nature of a rule of evidence, provides that the introduction in evidence of the unpaid and dishonored check with the drawee bank's refusal to pay "stamped or written thereon or attached thereto, giving the reason therefor," shall constitute prima facie proof of "the making or issuance of said check, and the due presentment to the drawee for payment and the dishonor thereof . . . for the reason written, stamped or attached by the drawee on such dishonored check." 6

The presumptions being merely prima facie, it is open to the accused of course to present proof to the contrary to overcome the said presumptions.

xxx

An essential element of the offense is "knowledge" on the part of the maker or drawer of the check of the insufficiency of his funds in or credit with the bank to cover the check upon its presentment. Since this involves a state of mind difficult to establish, the statute itself creates a prima facie presumption of such knowledge where payment of the check "is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check. 5 To mitigate the harshness of the law in its application, the statute provides that such presumption shall not arise if within five (5) banking days from receipt of the notice of dishonor, the maker or drawer makes arrangements for payment of the check by the bank or pays the holder the amount of the check.

EN BANC, CJ Yap, FLORENTINA A. LOZANO, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE ANTONIO M. MARTINEZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch XX, Manila, and the HONORABLE JOSE B. FLAMINIANO, in his capacity as City Fiscal of Manila, respondents.[G.R. No. L-63419. December 18, 1986.]

While the parties raise a number of issues, we deem the jurisdictional question to be decisive in the appeal. On this regard, we find for the people.

Violation of the bad checks act is committed when one "makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds" or "having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank . . . shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank." [1Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, Sec. 1, emphasis supplied]. Contrary to the opinion of the respondent judge, dishonor is but one ingredient of the offense.  [2 People v. Veridiano II, No. L-62243, Oct. 12, 1984, 132 SCRA 523 (1984); Lozano v. Martinez, Nos. L-63419; 66839-42; 71654; 74524-25; 75122-49; 75812-13; 75765-67; 75789, December 18, 1986, 146 SCRA 323 (1986)] In so holding, he has discounted the elements of "making or drawing and issuing" of the worthless check, or "knowledge" by the drawer "at the time of issue" that he has insufficient funds to cover it, or having sufficient funds, "shall fail" to cover the full amount of the check within ninety days from issuance.

In the case at bar, it is not disputed that the private respondents knew at the time they issued the two checks in question that they had not enough funds in the drawee bank to cover the said checks. "Knowledge," therefore, as an essential ingredient of the offense charged and as defined in the statute, is, by itself, a continuing eventuality, whether the accused be within one territory or another. Being so, it is sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the trial court.

The act of issuing the bum checks, as charged in the informations, furthermore, is a malum prohibitum. [3 Lozano v. Martines, supra, 334]. As such, it is committed by the very fact of its performance. 4 Colmenares v. Villar, No. L-27126, May 29, 1970, 33 SCRA 186 (1970).In that event, jurisdiction or venue is determined by the allegations in the information.  5 [ Supra, 189, citing Mediante v. Ortiz, L-19425, 27 April 1967, 19 SCRA 832 (1967); Arches v. Bellosillo, 46 O.G. 71.] In this case, the information states that the offense was committed in Bacolod City. The legal requirements set forth in Rule 110, Section 15 of the Revised Rules of Court as amended have, therefore, been substantially complied with.

Justice Sarmiento, SECOND DIVISION, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. HERBERTO A. MANZANILLA, Presiding Judge, Branch XLVII, Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental, Bacolod City, LOURDES TAN CHUA and JOHNNY TAN CHUA, respondents, [G.R. Nos. L-66003-04.  December 11, 1987.]

Petitioner now raises the following issues before us in this petition for review in certiorari: (a) whether the RTC of Manila acquired jurisdiction over the violations of the Bouncing Checks Law, and (b) whether the checks had been issued on account or for value.  [6 Id., pp. 19-22.]

As regards the first issue, petitioner contends that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the offenses under B.P. Blg. 22 and that assuming for the sake of argument that she raised the matter of jurisdiction only upon appeal to respondent appellate court, still she cannot be estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the trial court.

It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases the offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense allegedly committed therein by the accused. Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense allegedly committed outside of that limited territory.  [ 7 U.S. v. Cunanan, 26 Phil. 376-378 (1913)]. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. [8 Colmenares v. Villar, No. L-27124, 29 May 1970, 33 SCRA 186] And once it is so shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case. However, if the evidence adduced during the trial show that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.   [9 People v. Galano, No. L-42925, 31 January 1977, 75 SCRA 193.]

In the case at bar, the complaint for estafa and the various charges under B.P. Blg. 22 were jointly tried before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the lower court stating that none of the essential elements constitutive of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 was shown to have been committed in the City of Manila. She maintains that the evidence presented established that (a) complainant was a resident of Makati; (b) petitioner was a resident of Caloocan City; (c) the place of business of the alleged partnership was located in Malabon; (d) the drawee bank was located in Malabon; and, (e) the checks were all deposited for collection in Makati. Taken altogether, petitioner concludes that the said evidence would only show that none of the essential elements of B.P. Blg. 22 occurred in Manila. Respondent People of the Philippines through the Solicitor General on the one hand argues that even if there is no showing of any evidence that the essential ingredients took place or the offense was committed in Manila, what is critical is the fact that the court acquired jurisdiction over the estafa case because the same is the principal or main case and that the cases for violations of Bouncing Checks Law are merely incidental to the estafa case.

We disagree with respondent. The crimes of estafa and violation of the Bouncing Checks Law are two (2) different offenses having different elements and, necessarily, for a court to acquire jurisdiction each of the essential ingredients of each crime has to be satisfied.

In the crime of estafa, deceit and damage are essential elements of the offense and have to be established with satisfactory proof to warrant conviction. 10.        People v. Gorospe, G.R. Nos. 74053-54, 20 January 1988, 157 SCRA 154. For violation of the Bouncing Checks Law, on the other hand, the elements of deceit and damage are neither essential nor required. Rather, the elements of B.P. Blg. 22 are (a) the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply to account or for value; (b) the maker, drawer or issuer knows at the time of issuance that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment; and, (c) the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment. [11Navarro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos.  112389-90, 1 August 1994, 234 SCRA 639.] Hence, it is incorrect for respondent People to conclude that inasmuch as the Regional Trial Court of Manila acquired jurisdiction over the estafa case then it also acquired jurisdiction over the violations of B.P. Blg. 22. The crime of estafa and the violation of B.P. Blg. 22 have to be treated as separate offenses and therefore the essential ingredients of each offense have to be satisfied.

In this regard, the records clearly indicate that business dealings were conducted in a restaurant in Manila where sums of money were given to petitioner; hence, the acquisition of jurisdiction by the lower court over the estafa case. The various charges for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 however are on a different plain. There is no scintilla of evidence to show that jurisdiction over the violation of B.P. Blg. 22 had been acquired. On the contrary, all that the evidence shows is that complainant is a resident of Makati; that petitioner is a resident of Caloocan City; that the principal place of business of the alleged partnership is located in Malabon; that the drawee bank is likewise located in Malabon and that all the subject checks were deposited for collection in Makati. Verily, no proof has been offered that the checks were issued, delivered, dishonored or knowledge of insufficiency of funds occurred in Manila, which are essential elements necessary for the Manila Court to acquire jurisdiction over the offense.

Upon the contention of respondent that knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of the check of the insufficiency of his funds is by itself a continuing eventuality whether the accused be within one territory or another, the same is still without merit. It may be true that B.P. Blg. 22 is a transitory or continuing offense and such being the case the theory is that a person indicted with a transitory offense may be validly tried in any jurisdiction where the offense was in part committed. We note however that knowledge by the maker or drawer of the fact that he has no sufficient funds to cover the check or of having sufficient funds is simultaneous to the issuance of the instrument. We again find no iota of proof on the records that at the time of issue, petitioner or complainant was in Manila. As such, there would be no basis in upholding the jurisdiction of the trial court over the offense.

In an attempt to salvage the issue that the RTC of Manila had jurisdiction over the violations of B.P. Blg. 22, respondent relies on the doctrine of jurisdiction by estoppel. Respondent posits that it took some five (5) years of trial before petitioner raised the issue of jurisdiction.

The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, under Rule 117, Sec. 3, provides that the accused may move to quash the complaint or information on any of the following grounds: . . . (b) that the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charge or over the person of the accused. Moreover, under Sec. 8 of the same Rule it is provided that the failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of the grounds of a motion to quash, except the grounds of . . . lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged . . . as provided for in paragraph . . . (b) . . . of Section 3 of this Rule. [12 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.]

After a careful perusal of the records, it is crystal clear that petitioner timely questioned the jurisdiction of the court in a memorandum [13 Rollo. pp. 103-104] before the Regional Trial Court and thereafter in succeeding pleadings. On this finding alone, we cannot countenance the inadvertence committed by the court. Clearly, from the abovequoted law, we can see that even if a party fails to file a motion to quash, he may still question the jurisdiction of the court later on. Moreover, these objections may be raised or considered motu propio by the court at any stage of the proceedings or an appeal. [14 Suy Sui v. People, 49 O.G. 967]

Assuming arguendo that there was a belated attempt to question the jurisdiction of the court and hence, on the basis of the Tijam v. Sibonghanoy case [15 Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, No. L-21450, 15 April 1968, 23 SCRA 29] in which respondent seeks refuge, the petitioner should be estopped. We nonetheless find the jurisprudence of the Sibonghanoy case not in point.

In Calimlim v. Ramirez, [16.No. L-34362, 19 November 1982, 118 SCRA 399, Dy v. NLRC, G.R. No. 68544, 27 OCTOBER 1989, 145 SCRA 211]. the Court held that the ruling in the Sibonghanoy case is an exception to the general rule that the lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. The Court stated further that Tijam v. Sibonghanoy is an exceptional case because of the presence of laches. The Court said:

A rule that had been settled by unquestioned acceptance and upheld in decisions so numerous to cite is that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of the action is a matter of law and may not be conferred by consent or agreement of the parties. The lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. This doctrine has been qualified by recent pronouncements which stemmed principally from the ruling in the cited case of Sibonghanoy. It is to be regretted, however, that the holding in said case had been applied to situations which were obviously not contemplated therein. The exceptional circumstance involved in Sibonghanoy which justified the departure from the accepted concept of non-waivability of objection to jurisdiction has been ignored and, instead a blanket doctrine had been repeatedly upheld that rendered the supposed ruling in Sibonghanoy not as the exception, but rather the general rule, virtually overthrowing altogether the time-honored principle that the issue of jurisdiction is not lost by waiver or by estoppel. [17 People v. Eduarte, G.R. No. 88232, 26 February 1990, 182 SCRA 750, citing Calimlim v. Ramirez, No. L-34362, 19 November 1982, 118 SCRA 399].

In Sibonghanoy, the defense of lack of jurisdiction of the court that rendered the questioned ruling was held to be barred by laches. It was ruled that the lack of jurisdiction having been raised for the first time in a motion to dismiss filed almost fifteen (15) years after the questioned ruling had been rendered, such a plea may no longer be raised for being barred by laches. As defined in said case, laches is failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert has abandoned it or declined to assert it. 18 [ibid]

The circumstances of the present case are very different from Tijam v. Sibonghanoy. No judgment has yet been rendered by the trial court in this case. As a matter of fact, as soon as the accused discovered the jurisdictional defect, she did not fail or neglect to file the appropriate motion to dismiss. They questioned the jurisdiction of the trial court in a memorandum before the lower court. Hence, finding the pivotal element of laches to be absent, we hold that the ruling in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy does not control the present controversy. Instead, the general rule that the question of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings must apply. Petitioner is therefore not estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the trial court. 19 [ibid]

Justice Belosillo, First Division, Rosa Uy v. Cour of Appeal  and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 119000.  July 28, 1997.