SC stresses rules on jurisdiction in estafa cases

The Court said in this form of estafa, “[i]t is not the non-payment of a debt which is made punishable, but the criminal fraud or deceit in the issuance of the check.” (File Photo By Mike Gonzalez (TheCoffee) – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0)

In a 10-page decision dated January 23 this year, the SC, through Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta, upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals in an estafa case between two parties, which signed a Memorandum of Agreement for a deal in Parañaque City for the purchase of shares in a local company.

The check for payment was presented and dishonored in a bank in Makati City, prompting the estafa suit and the parties’ contentions on whether the case should have been filed in Parañaque City or Makati City.

In dismissing the appeal, the high court, echoing the CA, said “the place where the MOA was negotiated does not fix the venue of the offense in view of settled jurisprudence that what is of decisive importance is the delivery of the instrument which is the final act essential to its consummation as an obligation”.

“Indeed, it is rather unfair to require the defendant or accused to undergo the ordeal and expense of a trial if the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or offense or it is not the court of proper venue,” the SC decision reads.

The petition was filed by Ruel Francis M. Cabral charging Chris S. Bracamonte with the crime of estafa and arose over the aborted sale in 2009 of shares of stock in Wellcross Freight Corporation and Aviver International Corporation.

Bracamonte issued a postdated check to Cabral amounting to PHP12,677,950.

However, when the check was presented for payment in a bank in Makati City, the bank dishonored the same for lack of sufficient funds.

The Court said in this form of estafa, “[i]t is not the non-payment of a debt which is made punishable, but the criminal fraud or deceit in the issuance of the check.”

The Court also noted that “[n]ot only were the MOA and subject check executed, delivered, and dishonored in Makati City, it was even expressly stipulated in their agreement that the parties chose Makati City as a venue for any action arising from the MOA because that was where it was executed. It is, therefore, clear from the foregoing that the element of deceit took place in Makati City, where the worthless check was issued and delivered, while the damage was inflicted also in Makati City where the check was dishonored by the drawee bank.”

The Court also ruled that the petition should have been filed only by the State through the Office of the Solicitor General and not by Cabral, who lacks the personality or legal standing to question the CA decision, especially since the dismissal of Cabral’s complaint was not gravely erroneous nor did it amount to a denial of due process.