No criminal case if filed with wrong court – SC

In the prosecution of a criminal offense as a result of a failed business transaction, the place where the transaction was consummated with finality – like signing of an agreement and issuance of check payment – determines which trial court has jurisdiction, the Supreme Court (SC) said in a recent decision.

“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 stressed in a decision written by Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta.

With the ruling, the SC dismissed the petition of Ruel Francis M. Cabral and dismissed, without prejudice, the criminal case for estafa filed against Chris S. Bracamonte.

Case records showed that on Sept. 15, 2009, Cabral and Bracamonte executed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) in Makati City for the purchase of shares of stock in Wellcross Freight Corporation (WFC) and Aviver International Corporation (AVIVER).

Simultaneous with the signing of the MOA, Bracamonte issued to Cabral a postdated check for 112,677,950.15. When the check was presented for payment in a bank in Makati City, the bank dishonored it for lack of sufficient funds.

When Bracamonte failed to settle the obligation, Cabral filed an estafa case against him in Parañaque City. Bracamonte sought the dismissal of the case stressing that the venue was improperly laid as he pointed out that the check was delivered and dishonored in Makati City.

The Parañaque RTC denied Bracamonte’s motion. It ruled that it has jurisdiction over the case because Bracamonte employed fraudulent acts against Cabral during their meeting in the old warehouse of WFC and AVIVER located in Parañaque City, as alleged in the complaint.

The trial court further ruled that jurisdiction of the court is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information (criminal charge sheet). It added that since the complaint-affidavit and the information duly alleged that Bracamonte deceived Cabral in Parañaque City, the Parañaque RTC appropriately had jurisdiction over the case.

Bracamonte elevated the issue before the Court of Appeals (CA) which, on March 27, 2017, ruled in his favor. Cabral filed a petition with the SC which sustained the CA’s ruling.

The SC rejected Cabral’s claim that since the business transactions with regard to the terms and conditions of the MOA between him and Bracamonte were transacted in a warehouse in Parañaque City, the element of deceit definitely occurred in Parañaque City.

“Apart from the allegation, however, [Cabral] did not present any evidence, testimonial or documentary that would support or corroborate the assertion. Equally guilty of the same failure to substantiate is the trial court which relied merely on Cabral’s complaint affidavit in connecting the alleged offense within its territorial jurisdiction,” the SC said.

It also said:

“Not 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 dismissal of the criminal case, without prejudice, against Bracamonte means that Cabral can refile the complaint before the Makati City RTC.