177.

People of the Philippines vs Rolando Llamado  

GR 185278 Mar 13, 2009
Topic: Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
Facts:
In the evening of Feb 12, 2005, PO2 Ferdinand Brubio together with other police officers formed a buy-bust operation and
designated PO2 Brubio as the poseur-buyer. They went with the confidential informant to the pinpointed place of operation.
The informant saw appellant and pointed him to PO2 Brubio. Appellant asked PO2 Brubio how much he would buy and the
latter answered dos lang. PO2 Brubio held the shoulder of the police informant, the pre-arranged signal to their back-up
police officers that the drug sale transaction has been consummated. PO2 Brubio introduced himself as the police officer and
arrested appellant. The trial court finds the accused guilty of violation of Sec 5, Art II of RA 9165 and is hereby sentenced the
accused of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000. On appeal, the CA rendered the assailed decision denying the appeal and
affirming the decision of the court a quo. The appellate court held that the failure of the police officers to coordinate with the
local barangay officials prior to the conduct of the buy-bust operation did not invalidate the undertaking of the police officers
and that non-compliance with Sec 21 of RA 9165 did not render void and invalidate the seizure of the custody over the
confiscated items considering that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved by the
apprehending team.

Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of violating RA 9165.

Ruling:
Yes, the accused has committed the crime. There was no evidence that PO2 Brubio was motivated by reasons other than his
duty to enforce the law. In fact, appellant was caught in flagrante delicto in a legitimate entrapment operation and was
positively identified by the police officers who conducted the operation. Moreover, the failure on the part of the police to take
photographs and make an inventory of the drugs seized from the appellant was not fatal because the prosecution was able to
preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the said illegal drugs. The prosecution satisfactorily proved the illegal sale of
dangerous drugs and presented in court evidence of corpus delicti. In cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act,
credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers
who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there be evidence to the contrary. Moreover, in
the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against the appellant, the presumption of irregularity in
the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over
appellant’s self-serving and uncorroborated denial.

Topic: SPECIAL PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AGAINST ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION ACT (RA
7610)

Caballo vs. People 698 SCRA 227, June 10, 2013

FACTS:

On March 16, 1999, Caballo was charged with violating Article VI , Sec 10 of RA 7610. He persuaded AAA, who was 17 years
old, to have sexual intercourse with him. This was followed by several more sexual intercourse in April 1998. In June 1998,
AAA became pregnant and later gave birth on March 8, 1999. During the trial, the prosecution asserted that Caballo was only
able to induce AAA to lose her virginity due to promises of marriage and his assurance that he would not get her pregnant
due to the use of the "withdrawal method." Moreover, it claimed that Caballo was shocked upon hearing the news of AAA’s
pregnancy and consequently, advised her to have an abortion. She heeded Caballo’s advice; however, her efforts were
unsuccessful. Further, the prosecution averred that when AAA’s mother confronted Caballo to find out what his plans were
for AAA, he assured that he would marry her daughter.

In contrast, Caballo claimed that during their first sexual intercourse, AAA was no longer virgin. He alleged that AAA had (3)
three boyfriends prior to him. He posited that he and AAA were sweethearts who lived-in together, for one (1) week.
Eventually, they broke up due to the intervention of AAA’s parents. Finally, he averred that he repeatedly proposed marriage
to AAA but was always rejected because she was still studying. The RTC convicted Caballo on the crime charged. The CA
affirmed the RTC’s conviction to Caballo, but modified that his conviction is pursuant to Section 5 (Child Prostitution and
Other Sexual Abuse) of RA 7610. 

ISSUE:

Whether or not Caballo is guilty of the crime charged.

RULING:

Yes, Caballo is guilty of the crime charged. In the case of Olivarez v. CA (Olivarez), the elements of this offense are the
following:  a) The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (b) The said act is performed with a
child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (c) The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years
of age. The 1st and 3rd elements were clearly shown in this case. The 2 nd element was also present since AAA was sexually
abused through coercion or intimidation. The first form of coercion here was minority. AAA was not capable of fully
understanding or knowing the import of her actions and in consequence, remained vulnerable to the cajolery and deception
of adults since she was still a minor at the time of the offense. A well settled jurisprudence states that the consent is
immaterial in cases of child exploitation. Thus, the sweetheart defense of the petitioner is unacceptable. The law clearly seeks
to punish "those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or
subjected to other sexual abuse." Second, AAA’s minority was coupled with Caballo’s seniority as he was 6 years older than
AAA. Third, Caballo's actions effectively constitute overt acts of coercion and influence as he repeatedly assured AAA of his
love for her, promised to marry her, and would not get AAA pregnant. Fourth, on their first sexual encounter, it was
observed that AAA was put in a position of duress.

Crus vs. People 578 SCRA 147 February 6, 2009 – Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs act of 2002
FACTS:
A confidential informant went to Drug Enforcement Group (DEG) to set up a sale of shabu with the drug pusher at the
Dunkin Donuts along McArthur Highway. A buy-bust team was formed to entrap the pusher. The buy-bust team
approached and arrested petitioner and retrieved 2 sachets of shabu and recovered the marked money.
ISSUE:
WON illegal sale of shabu and illegal possession of shabu should be the case?
RULING:
This Court will delve only on the criminal case which convicted petitioner of illegal sale of shabu since he was acquitted in
Criminal Case No. 22087-MN for illegal possession of shabu.

A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and
capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. For the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu,
the following elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale
actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. Thus, the delivery of the illicit
drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust
transaction.

People vs. Abay 580 SCRA 235, February 24, 2009

Topic: SPECIAL PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AGAINST ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION ACT RA
7610

Facts: Sometime in December 1999 [appellant by means of force and intimidation, commit sexual abuse and lascivious
conduct against, a minor, 13 years of age and threatened to kill her should she report the incident, thereby gravely
endangering her survival and normal growth and development, to the damage and prejudice of the victim. RTC charged
appellant guilty of rape. CA affirmed RTC’s decision with modification.

Issue: W/N appellant is guilty of rape under RA 7610

Held: Under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 in relation to RA 8353, if the victim of sexual abuse is below 12 years of age,
the offender should not be prosecuted for sexual abuse but for statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal
Code and penalized with reclusion perpetua. On the other hand, if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be
charged with either sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the
Revised Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be accused of both crimes for the same act because his right against
double jeopardy will be prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected twice to criminal liability for a single criminal act. Likewise,
rape cannot be complexed with a violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610. Under Section 48 of the Revised Penal Code (on
complex crimes), a felony under the Revised Penal Code (such as rape) cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a
special law.

In this case, the victim was more than 12 years old when the crime was committed against her. The Information against
appellant stated that AAA was 13 years old at the time of the incident. Therefore, appellant may be prosecuted either for
violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code. While the
Information may have alleged the elements of both crimes, the prosecution’s evidence only established that appellant
sexually violated the person of AAA through force and intimidation by threatening her with a bladed instrument and forcing
her to submit to his bestial designs. Thus, rape was established. 
.

People vs. Dahil

745 SCRA 221 January 12, 2015

Topic: A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC (Adoption of Plea Bargaining Frame Work in Drug Cases April 10, 2018)
Facts: During Buy-bust operation, Dahil was caught with possession and custody and control Five (5) tea bags of dried
marijuana fruiting tops weighing TWENTY GRAMS AND SIX THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FORTY TWO TEN
THOUSANDTHS OF A GRAM (20.6642), which is a dangerous drug, without authority whatsoever in violation of Section 11,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and Castro also with possession and custody and control Five (5) tea bags of dried marijuana
fruiting tops weighing TWENTY GRAMS AND SIX THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FORTY TWO TEN THOUSANDTHS OF A
GRAM (20.6642). Upon turnover of the evidence there is lack of photos and lapses on presenting the evidence.

Issue: Whether or not Dahil and Castro is liable for R.A. No. 9165.

Ruling: No. In view of all the foregoing, the Court can only conclude that, indeed, there was no compliance with the
procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 because of the inadequate physical inventory and the lack of
photography of the marijuana allegedly confiscated from Dahil and Castro. No explanation was offered for the non-
observance of the rule. The prosecution cannot apply the saving mechanism of Section 21 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 because
it miserably failed to prove that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The four links
required to establish the proper chain of custody were breached with irregularity and lapses.

People vs. Delen

722 SCRA 334, April 21, 2014

Topic: SPECIAL PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AGAINST ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION ACT RA 7610

Facts: Delen was separately charged with child abuse under Section 10 (a), Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610 and qualified
rape in separate information before the RTC. He were alleged committed rape and child abuse to have been committed
against AAA as follows: AAA was born on March 29, 1992 to Delen and BBB. AAA’s parents separated as Delen was beating
BBB. AAA then lived with her aunt until the Delen took her in. In the year 2000, AAA lived in the Delen’s house. One day,
she was awakened from her sleep when Delen removed her shorts and panty. Delen then removed his shorts and went on top
of AAA. He inserted his penis into her organ.

Issue: Whether or not Belen should be convicted of qualified rape and child abuse?

Ruling: Yes. Yes, Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of rape is qualified when the victim is under
eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity
within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. The minority of a rape victim and her
relationship, being the father of the victim, the accused-appellant qualified the charge of rape. While, the term "child abuse" is
defined as the maltreatment of a child, whether habitual or not, which includes the physical abuse of a child, among other
acts. In this case, AAA positively identified Delen as the person who kicked her in the buttocks, hit her head with a hammer,
and smashed her head on the wall on.

Topic: A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC (Adoption of Plea-Bargaining Frame Work in Drug Cases April 10, 2018

People vs. Morilla, 715 SCRA 452, February 5, 2014

FACTS:

During a checkpoint, Mayor Mitra, Willie Yang and Ruel Dequilla were caught illegally transporting methamphetamine
hydrochloride or Shabu with an approximately weight of 503.68 kg by means of two (2) motor vehicles, namely a Starex van
with commemorative plate to read "Mayor" and a municipal ambulance. During the trial, Mayor Mitra argued that he
was without any knowledge of the contents of the sacks and explained that he only accommodated the request of a certain
Ben Tan because the latter bought his fishing boat. Likewise, Morilla insisted that he thought what he was transporting were
wooden tiles and electronic spare parts together with Dequilla. The other passenger of the ambulance, Yang, in his defense,
did not bother to inquire about the contents of the vehicle as he was merely an accommodated passenger of the ambulance.
The RTC convicted Mitra and Morilla but absolved Dequilla and Yang due to the prosecution’s failure to present sufficient
evidence to convict them.

ISSUES:

1) Whether or not intent or knowledge is material in determining the culpability of an accused in drug cases.
2) Whether or not the finding of conspiracy is correct.
 
RULING:

1) No, intent or knowledge is not material in determining the culpability of an accused in drug cases. The very act of
transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride is malum prohibitum since it is punished as an offense under a special law.
Morilla and Mayor Mitra were caught in flagrante delicto in the act of transporting the dangerous drugs on board their
vehicles. "Transport" as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act means "to carry or convey from one place to another." It was
well established during trial that Morilla was driving the ambulance following the lead of Mayor Mitra, who was driving a
Starex van going to Manila. The fact of transportation of the sacks containing dangerous drugs need not be accompanied by
proof of criminal intent, motive or knowledge.

2) Yes, the finding of conspiracy is correct. The finding of conspiracy by both courts is correct. A conspiracy exists when two
or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. To determine
conspiracy, there must be a common design to commit a felony. Morilla’s argument that the mere act of driving the
ambulance on the date he was apprehended is not sufficient to prove that he was part of a syndicated group involved in the
illegal transportation of dangerous drugs is misplaced. In conspiracy, it need not be shown that the parties actually came
together and agreed in express terms to enter into and pursue a common design. The assent of the minds may be and, from
the secrecy of the crime, usually inferred from proof of facts and circumstances which, taken together, indicate that they are
parts of some complete whole. In this case, the totality of the factual circumstances leads to a conclusion that Morilla
conspired with Mayor Mitra in a common desire to transport the dangerous drugs. Both vehicles loaded with several sacks of
dangerous drugs, were on convoy from Quezon to Manila. If indeed he was not involved in conspiracy with Mayor Mitra, he
would not have told the police officers that he was with the mayor.

PEOPLE VS. SORIN

FACTS: That on or about 8:20 in the evening of November 2, 2005 at Amoros, El Salvador, Misamis Oriental, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused , without authority of the law, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell two (2) sachets containing white crystalline substance positive to [sic] the presence
of METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (SHABU), a dangerous drug, with a combined weight of 0.12 gram to a
poseur-buyer for Four Hundred Pesos (PHP400.00) in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165.
Contrary to law.
ISSUE:  whether or not Sorin’s conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 should be upheld.
HELD: In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements
must concur: (a) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment for it. As the dangerous drug itself forms an integral and key part of the  corpus delicti of the crime, it is therefore
essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the prosecution must be
able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug, from the moment it was seized from the
accused up to the time it was presented in court as proof of the corpus delicti. 
 
Thus, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 27, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00953-
MIN is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Charlie Sorin y Tagaylo is ACQUITTED of the
crime of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165

165. People of the Philippines vs Nathaniel Grospe

GR L-75053-54 Jan 20, 1988

Topic: Bouncing Checks Law

Facts:

Manuel Parulan is an authorized dealer of San Miguel Corporation in Bulacan. He issued 2 checks in connection with beer
purchases and which he delivered to the Sales Supervisor (Mr. Cornelio) of San Miguel. The checks were dishonored by
Planters Development Bank in Bulacan. From the evidence presented, Parulan made false assurances that the checks issued
by him were good and backed by sufficient funds. After proceeding with the trial against respondent-accused for violation of
Batas Pambansa Blg 22 and the crime of estafa, respondent judge dismissed the cases for lack of jurisdiction. The people filed
a petition for certiorari challenging the dismissal of the two criminal cases.

Issue:

Whether or not Judge Grospe was correct in dismissing the case

Ruling:

No. He had jurisdiction to try and decide the case. Estafa is a transitory crime. There are the elements of deceit and
damage. Deceit took place in Pampanga and damage was done in Bulacan where the check was dishonored. While the check
was issued in Bulacan, it was not completely drawn. It was in Pampanga where the check was uttered and delivered. The
delivery of the instrument is the final act essential to the consummation of the obligation. Although the check was received by
San Miguel in Bulacan, it was not the delivery contemplated by the law to the San Miguel. Mr. Cornelio is not the person who
could take the check as holder. Thus, he had to forward the check to the regional office of San Miguel in Pampanga. Deceit
took place in Pampanga where the check was legally issued and delivered.

Topic: BOUNCING CHECKS LAW (B.P. Blg. 22)

Azarcon vs. People, 622 SCRA 341, June 29, 2010

Facts:

The petitioner, a businesswoman, has been borrowing money from Marcosa who was engaged with an informal money
lending. Petitioner issued several Premier Bank checks payable to Marcosa, as a payment for her debt. However, the checks
were dishonored due to the accounts being closed. Thus, Marcosa demanded the settlement of her P749,000 through a
counsel. In her reply, the petitioner expressed her willingness to settle her outstanding account. Petitioner’s husband later
paid P200,000 as an initial payment for the debt and promised to settle the rest via monthly installments. However, two and a
half years have passed and still the petitioner hadn’t settled her outstanding obligation. Thus, Marcosa filed a complaint in
violation of B.P. 22 involving 120 checks issued by the petitioner amounting to P746,250. Petitioner requests for acquittal of
the charge because of her lack of knowledge of the insufficiency of her credit due to Marcosa's failure to specify or enumerate
the dishonored checks in her demand letter.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused may be acquitted of B.P. 22 for her lack of knowledge of the insufficiency of her credit in the
bank?

Ruling:

No. Section 2 of the Bouncing Checks Law requires that the accused may be notified in writing of the fact of dishonor.
Petitioner admitted that she received a demand letter from Marcosa and in fact, she replied of her willingness to settle her
debt, thus she was fully aware of the status of the account. In addition, the receipts from the payment of P200,000 and other
installments are evidences for the petitioner’s acknowledgement of the debt. Therefore, the petition was denied by the Court.

Topic: BOUNCING CHECKS LAW (B.P. Blg. 22)

De Villla vs. CA, 195 SCRA 722, April 8, 1991

FACTS:

[P]etitioner Cecilio S. de Villa was charged before the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region (Makati,
Branch 145) with violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. Petitioner moved to dismiss the Information on the following
grounds: (a) Respondent court has no jurisdiction over the offense charged; and (b) That no offense was committed since the
check involved was payable in dollars, hence, the obligation created is null and void pursuant to Republic Act No. 529 (An
Act to Assure Uniform Value of Philippine Coin and Currency). A petition for certiorari seeking to declare the nullity of the
RTC ruling was filed by the petitioner in the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition with costs against
the petitioner. A motion for reconsideration of the said decision was filed by the petitioner but the same was denied by the
Court of Appeals, thus elevated to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the RTC of Makati has jurisdiction over the case.

Whether or not B.P. No. 22 covers foreign (currency) checks.

RULING:

Yes, the RTC of Makati has jurisdiction over the case. In offenses involving violations of the Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22),
the determinative factor in determining venue, is the place of the issuance of the check. Therefore, since the information of the
case alleges that the offense was committed in Makati, the same is controlling, and it sufficiently vests jurisdiction upon RTC
of Makati.

Yes, B.P. No. 22 covers foreign checks. It is a cardinal principle in statutory construction that where the law does not
distinguish courts should not distinguish. Parenthetically, the rule is that where the law does not make any exception, courts
may not except something unless compelling reasons exist to justify it. Under the Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Blg. 22), foreign
checks, provided they are either drawn and issued in the Philippines though payable outside thereof, or made payable and
dishonored in the Philippines though drawn and issued outside thereof, are within the coverage of said law. The law likewise
applied to checks drawn against current accounts in foreign currency. In addition, the records of the Batasan, Vol. III,
unmistakably show that the intention of the lawmakers is to apply the law to whatever currency may be the subject thereof.
SANTIAGO IBASCO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, respondents.

[G.R. No. 117488. September 5, 1996]

Facts:

Maria Negro Trivinio and her late husband Manuel Trivinio operate an animal feed mill in Gumaca, Quezon while accused-
appellant Santiago lbasco and his wife operate a piggery in Daet, Camarines Norte

On or about October 26, 1983, accused-appellant Santiago lbasco and his wife, came to the residence of the Trivinios and
requested credit accommodation for the supply of ingredients in the manufacture of animal feeds

In accordance with the agreed credit arrangement, the Trivinios made three deliveries of darak with a total value of
P51,566.49

in payment, accused-appellant issued three (3) postdated checks

All checks were drawn against United Coconut Planters Bank, Daet Branch.

Upon presentment to the Bank for payment of their due dates, the checks bounced for being drawn against insufficient funds

Trivinio spouses notified accused-appellant of the dishonor

Accused-appellant replied by telegram offering his real property in Daet as security and invited the Trivinios to come to Daet
and inspect the property

Accused-appellant replied by telegram offering his real property in Daet as security. Accused-appellant invited the Trivinios
to come to Daet and inspect the property

For failure of the accused to settle his account with the Trivinios, the instant case was filed

There were several Informations filed against Ibasco for violations of BP 22 which were consolidated and jointly tried

Upon arraignment, the petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charges.

RTC of Gumaca, Quezon required the parties to submit their respective memoranda.

RTC denied motion to dismiss: informations alleged that the violations were committed in Barangay Camohaguin, Gumaca,
Quezon, and that pieces of evidence, the affidavits of Maria Negro, the surviving spouse of Manuel Trivinio who was
presented by the defense as a hostile witness, established that the checks were issued in the said place.

RTC convicted the petitioner

Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 was purposely enacted to prevent the proliferation of worthless checks in the mainstream of daily
business and to avert not only the undermining the Banking System of the country, but also the infliction of damage and
injury upon trade and commerce occasioned by the indiscriminate issuance of such checks. By its very nature, the offenses
defined BP 22 are against public interest while the crime of Estafa is against property.

Since the act and commission specified in BP Blg. 22 are not necessarily evil or wrongful from their nature and neither are
they inherently illicit and immoral and considering that the law which penalize [sic] such act or commission is a special
statutory law, the offenses are considered mala prohibita and considering the rule in cases of mala prohibita, the only inquiry
is whether or not the law has been violated

criminal intent is not necessary where the acts are prohibited for reasons of public policy

The defense of good faith and absence of criminal intent would not prosper in prosecution for violation

ISSUE: Whether or Not RTC erred in not dismissing the cases for lack of Jurisdiction. (NO)

The sworn statement of Maria Trivinio (witness presented by accused-appellant) repudiated the allegation of the accused in
questioning the jurisdiction of this Court between the protestation of the accused that the place of issuance to be at Daet,
Camarines Norte and the positive allegation of witness Maria Negro Trivinio that the checks were delivered at their residence
in Gumaca, Quezon by the accused

The Court gave weight and credence to the testimony of said witness and accused is bound by his own evidence
People vs. Grospe: a violation of BP 22 is an offense that appears to be continuing in nature. The knowledge on the part of
maker 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

Bouncing checks also appears to be continuing in nature.

In the case at bench it appears that the three (3) checks were deposited in Lucena City.

The delivery of the instrument is the final act essential to its consummation as an obligation

Violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is in the nature of a continuing crime.

Venue is determined by the place where the elements of making, issuing, or drawing of the check and delivery thereof are
committed.

People vs. Yabut: "[t]he theory is that a person indicted with a transitory offense may be validly tried in any jurisdiction
where the offense was in part committed. xxx 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.”

Decision

The instant petition is DENIED, and the challenged decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 62, Gumaca, Quezon, in
Criminal Cases Nos. 2755-G, 2756-G, and 2757-G is hereby AFFIRMED.

Costs against the petitioner.

King vs. People, 319 SCRA 654, December 2, 1999 – Bouncing Checks Law

FACTS:

Accused well knowing that at the time of issue she/he did not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the
payment in full of the face amount of such check upon their presentment, which check when presented for payment within
ninety (90) days from the date thereof were subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason ‘Account Closed’ and
despite receipt of notice of such dishonor the accused failed to pay the face amount thereof or make arrangement for the full
payment thereof within five (5) working days after receiving notice.” King vs. People, 319 SCRA 654, G.R. No. 131540
December 2, 1999

ISSUE:

WON the prosecution has sufficient evidence to prove libel.

RULING:

To hold a person liable under BP 22, it is not enough to establish that a check issued was subsequently dishonored. It must be
shown further that the person who issued the check knew “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.” Because this element involves a
state of mind which is difficult to establish, Section 2 of the law creates a prima facie presumption of such knowledge.

Ladonga vs. People 451 SCRA 673 February 17, 2005

Topic: BOUNCING CHECKS LAW (B.P. Blg. 22)

Facts: Accused was charged with her husband violation of BP 22 for issuing checks on closed account. RTC found her
husband guilty and the accused as co-conspirator of the said crime. Accused appeal to the CA contending that BP 22 has no
provision on conspiracy. CA affirmed the decision of the RTC stating that as the BP 22 do not prohibit the application of RPC
in suppletory, Conspiracy to commit violation of BP 22 is valid. Hence this case.
Issue: Whether the RPC is suppletory to BP 22.

Held: Yes, B.P. Blg. 22 does not expressly proscribe the suppletory application of the provisions of the RPC. Thus, in the
absence of contrary provision in B.P. Blg. 22, the general provisions of the RPC which, by their nature, are necessarily
applicable, may be applied suppletorily. ART. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. – Offenses which are or
in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be
supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary. The first clause should be understood to
mean only that the special penal laws are controlling with regard to offenses therein specifically punished. Said clause only
restates the elemental rule of statutory construction that special legal provisions prevail over general ones. Lex specialis
derogant generali. In fact, the clause can be considered as a superfluity, and could have been eliminated altogether. The
second clause contains the soul of the article. The main idea and purpose of the article is embodied in the provision that the
“code shall be supplementary” to special laws, unless the latter should specifically provide the contrary..

Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Jacinto

626 SCRA 315 August 3, 2010

Topic: Bouncing Checks Law

Facts: The First Women’s Credit Corporation (FWCC) obtained a loan from the petitioner Land Bank in the aggregate amount
of ₱400 million, evidenced by a Credit Line Agreement6 dated August 22, 1997. As security for the loan, respondent Ramon P.
Jacinto, President of FWCC, issued in favor of Land Bank nine (9) postdated checks amounting to ₱465 million and drawn
against FWCC’s account at the Philippine National Bank. Later, before the checks matured, petitioner and respondent
executed several letter agreements which culminated in the execution of a Restructuring Agreement on June 3, 1998. Under
the new agreement, the loan obligation contracted under the Credit Line Agreement of August 22, 1997 was restructured, its
terms of payment, among others, having been changed or modified. When FWCC defaulted in the payment of the loan
obligation under the terms of their restructured agreement, petitioner presented for payment to the drawee bank the
postdated checks as they matured. However, all the checks were dishonored or refused payment for the reason "Payment
Stopped" or "Drawn Against Insufficient Funds." Respondent also failed to make good the checks despite demands.

Issue: Whether or not Jacinto is liable for B.P. 22 or bouncing check.

Ruling: Yes. It is well settled that the mere act of issuing a worthless check, even if merely as an accommodation, is covered
by B.P. 22. Thus, this Court has held that the agreement surrounding the issuance of dishonored checks is irrelevant to the
prosecution for violation of B.P. 22.

Lina Lim Lao v. People, G.R. No. 119178, June 20,1997

Topic: BOUNCING CHECKS LAW (B.P. Blg. 22)

Facts: Lim Lim Lao was a junior officer of Premier Investment House in its Binondo branch. She was authorized to sign
checks for and in behalf of the corporation. In the course of business, she met Fr. Artelijo Palijo, provincial treasurer of the
Society of the Divine Word. Fr. Palijo was authorized to invest donations of the society and had been investing the society’s
money with Premiere. Fr. Palijo was issued checks in payment of interest for the society’s investments. The checks were
dishonored for “insufficiency of funds.” Fr. Palijo was only able to acquire P5,000 for his efforts in demanding the payment of
the checks. Premiere, subsequently, was placed under receivership. Fr. Palijo filed a suit against Lim Lao and his co-signatory,
Teodulo Asprec, head of operations for violation of BP 22.

Issue: Whether an employee who, as part of her regular duties, signs blank corporate check, be held for violation of BP22.

Held: The checks co-signed by Lim Lao were signed in advance and in blank, delivered to the head of operations, who
subsequently filled in the name of he payee, the amounts and corresponding dates of maturity; this procedure followed in
keeping with her duties as a junior officer. Though BP 22 provides the presumption that a drawer is knowledgeable of the fact
of insufficiency of funds, such presumption may be debunked by contrary evidence. Herein, Lim Lao does not have the
power, duty or responsibility to monitor and assess the balances against the issuance, nor to make sure that the checks were
funded. Such responsibility devolved upon the corporation’s Treasury Department in Cubao, Quezon City. Furthermore, no
notice of dishonor was actually sent or received by Lim Lao to support the prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficient
funds. She was thus acquitted.