Dear PAO,

May I know where we can file a complaint for an alleged violation of Batas Pambansa (BP) 22?

Geraldine

Dear Geraldine,

The answer to your question is best elucidated by the decision of the Supreme Court in Brodeth vs. People (GR 197849, Nov. 29, 2017), penned by Associate Justice Samuel Reyes Martires. Succinctly, the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case, says:

“In fact, in the more recent Yalong v. People, wherein the modes of appeal and rules of procedure were the issues at hand, the Court similarly inferred:

“Besides, even discounting the above-discussed considerations, Yalong’s appeal still remains dismissible on the ground that, inter alia, the MTCC had properly acquired jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 45414. It is well-settled that the violation of B.P. Blg. 22 cases is categorized as transitory or continuing crimes, which means that the acts material and essential thereto occur in one municipality or territory, while some occur in another.

“Accordingly, the court wherein any of the crime’s essential and material acts have been committed maintains jurisdiction to try the case; it being understood that the first court taking cognizance of the same excludes the other. Stated differently, 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. Applying these principles, a criminal case for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 may be filed in any of the places where any of its elements occurred — in particular, the place where the check is drawn, issued, delivered, or dishonored.

“In this case, while it is undisputed that the subject check was drawn, issued, and delivered in Manila, records reveal that Ylagan presented the same for deposit and encashment at the LBC Bank in Batangas City where she learned of its dishonor. As such, the MTCC [of Batangas City] correctly took cognizance of Criminal Case No. 45414 as it had the territorial jurisdiction to try and resolve the same. In this light, the denial of the present petition remains warranted.

“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. Thus, the fact that the check subject of the instant case was drawn, issued, and delivered in Pampanga does not strip off the Makati METC of its jurisdiction over the instant case for it is undisputed that the subject check was deposited and presented for encashment at the Makati Branch of Equitable PCI Bank. The METC of Makati, therefore, correctly took cognizance of the instant case and rendered its decision in the proper exercise of its jurisdiction. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In connection with the foregoing, it must be clear that a case for an alleged violation of BP 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law, may be filed before the court with territorial jurisdiction over any of the places where one of the elements of the crime occurred — in particular, the place where the check is drawn, issued, delivered, dishonored or deposited. Be that as it may, it must be noted that the first court taking cognizance of the same excludes the other.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated on.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]