TodayisSaturday,January23,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
G.R.No.L42847April29,1977
THEPEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,petitioner,
vs.
CECILIAQUEYABUTandHON.JESUSDEVEGA,asJudgeoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofBulacan,
BranchII,respondents.
G.R.No.L42902April29,1977
THEPEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,petitioner,
vs.
GEMINIANOYABUT,JR.,respondent.
ProvincialFiscalPascualKliatchkoandOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral,forpetitioner.
ZoiloP.Perlasasprivateprosecutor.
GeminianoF.Yabutforprivaterespondents.

MARTIN,J.:
TwonovelquestionsoflawarepresentedtoUsinthesepetitionstoreviewoncertiorarithequashalordersofthe
CourtofFirstInstanceofBulacan,sittingatMalolos,first,theruleonvenueorjurisdictioninacaseofestafafor
postdatingorissuingacheckwithoutinsufficientfunds,andsecond,whetherthenewlawoncheckspunishesthe
postdatingorissuancethereofinpaymentofapreexistingobligation.
PrivaterespondentCeciliaQueYabutinL42847wasaccusedofestafabymeansoffalsepretensesbeforethe
CourtofFirstInstanceofBulacan,presidedoverbyrespondentJudgeJesusdeVega.Theinformation,docketed
ascriminalcase1404,charges:
That during the period from February 22, to February 26, 1975, in the Municipality of Malolos,
ProvinceofBulcan,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,thesaidaccused
Cecilia Que Yabut, as treasurer of the Yabut Transit Line, by means of false pretenses and
pretending to have sufficient funds in the Merchants Banking Corporation, located and doing
businessinCaloocanCity,preparedissuedandmakeoutCheckNos.CB19035B,CB190396and
CB190397,datedFebruary22,1975,February24,1975andFebruary26,1975,inthetotalsumof
P6,568.94, drawn against the Merchants Banking Corporation, payable to Freeway Tires Supply,
owned and operated by Alicia P. Andan, in payment of articles and merchandise delivered to and
receivedbysaidaccused,gaveanddeliveredthesaidcheckstothesaidFreewayTiresSupply,the
saidaccusedCeciliaQueYabutwellknowingthatatthetimetherewasnoorinsufficientfundsinthe
said Merchants Banking Corporation, and upon presentation of the said checks to the bank, the
checksweredishonoredandinspiteofrepeateddemandsbytheowneroftheFreewayTiresSupply
todepositthenecessaryfundstocoverthecheckswithinthereglementaryperiodenjoinedbylaw,
failedandrefusedtodoso,tothedamageandprejudiceofAliciaP.Andan,ownerandoperatorof
theFreewayTiresSupply,inthetotalamountofP6,568.94.
Instead of entering a plea, respondent Cecilia Que Yabut filed a motion to quash on September 1, 1975,
contendingthattheactschargeddonotconstitutetheoffenseasthereisnoallegationthatthepostdatedchecks
wereissuedanddeliveredtothecomplainantpriortoorsimultaneouslywiththedeliveryofthemerchandise,the
crimeofestafanotbeingindictable,whenchecksarepostdatedorissuedinpaymentofpreexistingobligation
andthevenuewasimproperlylaidinMalolos,Bulacan,becausethepostdatedcheckswereissuedanddelivered
to,andreceivedby,thecomplainantintheCityofCaloocan,whereshe(respondentQueYabut)holdsoffice.
AnoppositionwasinterposedbythePeople,maintainingthatthenewlawonchecks(Rep.Act4885,amending
Art.315,par.2(d),RevisedPenalCode),penalizesthepostdatingorissuancethereofinpaymentofpreexisting
obligation and that the Malolos court can exercise jurisdiction over the case, since the last ingredient of the
offense,i.e.,damage,transpiredinBulacan(residenceofcomplainant)afterthedishonorofthechecksforlackof
funds.

JudgeJesusdeVegaquashedtheinformation,asprayedforbyrespondentQueYabut,onNovember10,1975
for the reason "that the proper venue in this case is Caloocan City and not Bulacan." Whether estafa lies for
postdatingorissuingacheckinpaymentofapreexistingobligationwasnotbyrespondentJudge.
ThePeople'smotionforreconsiderationofthisdismissalorderwasdeniedonJanuary12,1976.
Theotherprivaterespondent,GerminianoYabut,Jr.(L42902),husbandofrespondentCeciliaQueYabut,stood
chargedincriminalcase1405MbeforetheCourtofFirstInstanceofBulacan,presidedoverbyJudgeEdgardo
L.Paras,ofthecrimeofestafaunderArt.315,par.2(d)oftheRevisedPenalCodeinthat:
(D)uring the period from February 23 to April 9, 1975, in the municipality of Malolos, Province of
Bulacan,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,thesaidaccusedGeminiano
Yabut, Jr., as presided of the Yabut Transit Line, by means of false pretenses and pretending to
have sufficient funds in the Merchants Banking Corporation and Manufacturers Bank and Trust
Company,locatedanddoingbusinessinCaloocanCity,prepared,issuedandmakeoutCheckNos.
CB192042 B, CB192043 B, 423123, CB191988 B, 423124, CB192044 B, CB192045 B, CB
193737B,CB193738B,CB193739B,CB199953B,CB199954B,CB199955B,andCB199956
B, dated February 23, 26, 27, March 1, 3, 10, 11, 12, April 4, 7, 8 and 9, 1975 in the total sum of
P37,206.00,drawn against the Merchants Banking Corporation and Manufacturers Bank and Trust
Company,payabletotheFreeTiresSupplyandFreeCaltexStation,ownedandoperatedbyAlicia
P.Andan,inpaymentarticlesandmerchandisedeliveredtoandreceivedbysaidaccused,gaveand
delivered the said checks to said Freeway Tires Supply and Freeway Caltex Station, the said
accusedGeminianoYabut,Jr.wellknowingthatatthetimetherewasnoorinsufficientfundsinthe
said Merchants Banking Corporation and Manufacturers Bank and Trust Company, and upon
presentation of the said checks to the bank, the checks were dishonored and inspite of repeated
demands by the owner of the Freeway Tires Supply and Freeway Caltex Station to deposit the
necessary funds to cover the cheeks within the reglementary period enjoined by law, failed and
refused to do so, to the damage and Prejudice of Alicia P. Andan, owner and operator of the
FreewayTiresSupplyandFreewayCaltexStationinthetotalsumofP37,206.00.
Likehiswife,respondentGeminianoJr.movedtoquashtheinformationontwogrounds:(1)thefactsreciteddo
not constitute an offense because the checks were issued in payment of a preexisting obligation and (2) the
venuewasimproperlylaid,consideringthatthepostdatedcheckswereissuedanddeliveredtoandreceivedby
thecomplainantinCityofCaloocan,whererespondentholdsoffice.
On October 13, 1975, Judge Paras quashed the information because "(t)he elements of the crime (issuance of
therubbercheck,attemptedencashment,andrefusaltohonor)allegedintheInformationalltookplacewithinthe
territorialjurisdiction,notofBulacan,butofCaloocanCity."
ThePeoplemovedforreconsideration,butonFebruary9,1976,themotionwasdenied.
Hence,thetwopetitionsforreviewoncertiorariwerefiledbythePeopleofthePhilippines.
Wefindbothpetitionstobeimpressedwithmerits.
1. Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check under Art. 315, par. 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code may be a
transitory or continuing offense. 1 Its basic elements of deceit and damage 2 may independently arise in separate
places.Intheeventofsuchoccurrence,theinstitutionofthecriminalactionineitherplaceislegallyallowed.Section14(a),
Rule110oftheRevisedRulesofCourtprovides:"Inallcriminalprosecutionstheactionshallbeinstitutedandtriedinthe
Courtofthemunicipalityorprovincewhereintheoffensewascommittedoranyoneoftheessentialingredientsthereoftook
place." 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. 3 However, if all the acts material and essential to the crime and requisite of its
consummationoccurredinonemunicipalityorprovince,thecourtofthatmunicipalityorprovincehasthesolejurisdictionto
trythecase.

TheestafachargedinthetwoinformationsinvolvedinthecasebeforeUsappearstobetransitoryorcontinuing
innature.DeceithastakenplaceinMalolos,Bulacan,whilethedamageinCaloocanCity,wherethecheckswere
dishonoredbythedraweebanksthere.Jurisdictioncan,therefore,beentertainedbyeithertheMaloloscourtor
the Caloocan court. While the subject checks were written, signed, or dated in Caloocan City, they were not
completely made or drawn there, but in Malolos, Bulacan, where they were uttered and delivered. That is the
placeofbusinessandresidenceofthepayee.Theplacewherethebillswerewritten,signed,ordateddoesnot
necessarilyfixordeterminetheplacewheretheywereexecuted.Whatisofdecisiveimportanceisthedelivery
thereof. The delivery of the instrument is the final act essential to its consummation as an obligation. 4 An
undeliveredbillornoteisinoperative.Untildelivery,thecontractisrevocable. 5Andtheissuanceaswellasthedeliveryof
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." 6 Delivery of the check signifies transfer of possession, whether actual or
constructive,fromonepersontoanotherwithintenttotransfertitlethereto.7Thus,thepenalizingclauseoftheprovisionof
Art.315,par.2(d)states:"Bypostdatingacheck,orissuingacheckinpaymentofanobligationwhentheoffenderhadno
funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check." Clearly, therefore,
the element of deceit thru the issuance and delivery of the worthless checks to the complainant took place in Malolos,
Bulcan,conferringuponacourtinthatlocalityjurisdictiontotrythecase.

Modesto Yambao's receipt of the bad checks from Cecilia Que Yabut or Geminiano Yabut Jr. in Caloocan City

cannot, contrary to the holding of the respodent Judges, be licitly taken as delivery of the checks to the
complainant Alicia 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"indorse".AndthereappearstobenocontractofagencybetweenYambaoandAndan
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 "parttime employee." 8 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
principalconsentofbothpartiesisessential,theprincipalconsentsthattheotherparty,theagent,shallactonhisbehalf,
andtheagentconsentssotoact. 9Itmustexistasafact.Thelawmakesnopresumptionthereof.Thepersonallegingit
hastheburdenofprooftoshow,notonlythefactofitsexistence,butalsoitsnatureandextent. 10Thisismoreimperative
whenitisconsideredthatthetransactiondealtwithinvolveschecks,whicharenotlegaltender,andthecreditormayvalidly
refusethesameaspaymentofobligation.11

Furthermore,theplaceofbusinessoftheoffendedparty,theFreewayTiresSupplyandFreewayCaltexStation,
isatMalolos,Bulacan,fromwherethetireandgaspurchaseswereamadebythetwoprivaterespondents.Asa
consequence, payment thereof should be considered effected at Malolos, Bulacan. "(I)f the undertaking is to
deliveradeterminatething,thepaymentshallbemadewhereverthethingmightbeatthemomenttheobligation
was constituted. 12 The receipt by the two private respondents at Caloocan City of the tires and gas supplies from
Malolos, Bulacan, signifies but the consummation of the contract between the parties. It was the result of an obligation
previouslycontractedatMalolos,Bulacan. 13Theavermentsintheinformationsdonotindicatethatthecomplainantisan
ambulant peddler of tires and gas, but maintains a fixed and determinate place of business at Malolos, Bulacan.
Obligations,therefore,contractedasregardsherbusinessmustpresumptivelybeatherplaceofbusiness.

2.Ingeneralterms,aprosecutionforissuingaworthlesscheckwithintenttodefraudisinthecountywherethe
checkwasutteredanddelivered. 14Thus,whereacheckwasdrawninMercedCountyandmadepayable at a Merced
Countybank,butdeliveredtoamerchantinSacramentoCountybythedrawer'sagent,theSacramentoCountycourtsand
hadjurisdictionofaprosecutionagainstthedrawerforutteringacheckwithoutfundsorcreditwithintenttodefraud. 15 The
venue of the offense lies at the place where the check was executed and delivered to the payee. 16 Since in the instant
case it was in Malolos, Bulacan where the checks were uttered and delivered to complaint Andan, at which place, her
business and residence were also located, the criminal prosecution of estafa may be lodged therein.17 As earlier pointed
out,thegivingofthechecksbythetwoprivaterespondentsinCaloocanCitytoModestoYambocannotbetreatedasvalid
deliveryofthechecks,becauseYamboisamere"messenger"or"parttimeemployee"andnotanagentofcomplaintAlicia
P.Andan.

3.Thenextpointofinquiryiswhetherornotthepostdatingorissuingofaworthlesscheckinpaymentofapre
existingobligationconstitutesestafaunderArt.315,par.2(d)oftheRevisedPenalCode.Wefeel,however,that
due to the absence of concrete evidence on the specific nature of the obligation assumed or supposedly
dischargedbytheissuanceofthebadchecks,resolutionofthiscontroversialissueonthebasisoftheaverments
inthecriminalinformationsaloneisnotyetripe.Asrevealedbythepleadings,thepartiesareatdivergenceon
thecharacteroftheobligationforwhichtheprivaterespondentsissuedthechecksintendedaspaymentthereof.
Private respondents maintain that the obligation is a preexisting one. The prosecution, on the other hand,
representedtothetrialcourtsinitsOppositiontotheMotionstoQuash:"Wewillprovebyourevidencethatsaid
checksarenotinpaymentofapreexistingobligation." 18 The deferment of the resolution becomes more imperative
when it is considered that the question raised is one of first impression and of consequential farranging effects on
transactionsinchecks.

4.Adinterim, We hold that the facts charged in the informations against private respondents, contrary to their
claim, constitute estafa under Art. 315, par. 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code. In considering a motion to quash
basedontheground"(t)hatthefactschargeddonotconstituteanoffense," 19thepointofresolutioniswhetherthe
facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would meet the essential elements of the offense as defined in the law. 20 The
facts alleged in the criminal charge should be taken as they are. 21 An analysis of the two informations involved in the
present case convinces Us that the facts charged therein substantially constitute the integral elements of the offense as
defined in the law. And the averments in the two informations sufficiently inform the two private respondents of the nature
andcauseoftheaccusationsagainstthem,therebydefeatinganyconstitutionalobjectionoflackofnotice.22

ACCORDINGLY, the appealed orders of the respondent trial courts ordering the quashal of the estafa
informationsagainstthetwoprivaterespondentsinthepetitionsatbarareherebyreversedandsetaside.The
informations,astheyare,substantiallyconformwiththecrimechargedasdefinedinthelaw.Letthearraignment
oftheprivaterespondentsinthecriminalcasesbelowbesetattheearliestdateand,thereafter,thetrialonthe
meritstoproceedimmediately.Nocosts.
SOORDERED.
Makasiar,andAntonioJJ.,concur.
MuozPalma,J.,concurintheresults.

SeparateOpinions
TEEHANKEE,J.,concurring: