BP 22 is a transitory or continuing crime; it may be tried in the place where the check was deposited. – “It is well settled that violations of B.P. [Blg] 22 cases are categorized as transitory or continuing crimes, meaning that some acts material and essential thereto and requisite in their consummation occur in one municipality or territory, while some occur in another. In such cases, the court wherein any of the crime’s essential and material acta have been committed maintains jurisdiction o try the case; it being understood that the first court taking cognizance of the same excludes the other. Thus, a person charged with a continuing ot transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or territory where the offense was in part committed.
X X X
X X X
Guided by the foregoing pronouncements, there is no denying, therefore, that the court of the place where the check was deposited or presented for encashment can be vested with jurisdiction to try cases involving violations of B.P. Blg. 22. X X”[1]
“Knowledge on the part of the drawer 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.”[2]
Place where check was issued and drawn. – “Although the check was dishonored by the drawee, Associated Bank, in its Tarlac Branch, appellant has drawn, issued and delivered it at RBSJ, San Juan. The place of issue and delivery was San Juan and knowledge, as an essential part of the offense, was also overtly manifested in San Juan. There is no question that crimes committed in November, 1989 in San Juan are triable by the RTC stationed in Pasig. In short both allegation and proof in this case sufficiently vest jurisdiction upon the RTC in Pasig City.”[3]
The court has no jurisdiction to try the case where the records are extant of evidence showing the check was issued, drawn, delivered, or deposited, in the place where the court has territorial jurisdiction.[4]
[1] Morillo v People, 775 Phil. 192 (2015), cited in Brodeth and Onal v People and Villegas, G.R. No. 197849, November 29, 2017; Yalong v. People, G.R. No. 187174, Augusut 28, 2013
[2] People v. Manzanilla, G.R. No. 66003-04, December 11, 1987, cited in People v. Grospe, G.R. no. L-74053-54, January 30, 1988
[3] Rigor v. People, G.R. No. 144887, November 17, 2004
[4]Brodeth and Onal v People and Villegas, G.R. No. 197849, November 29, 2017