Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence: Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

10/13/22, 1:55 PM G.R. No. 119000 July 28, 1997 - ROSA UY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
7 - ROSA UY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. : July 1997 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence
Search

ChanRobles Professional
Review, Inc.

July 1997 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1997 > July 1997 Decisions >
G.R. No. 119000 July 28, 1997 - ROSA UY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1997julydecisions.php?id=567 1/21
10/13/22, 1:55 PM G.R. No. 119000 July 28, 1997 - ROSA UY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. : July 1997 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
FIRST DIVISION
ChanRobles On-Line Bar [G.R. No. 119000. July 28, 1997.]
Review

ROSA UY, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
Rolando P. Quimbo for Petitioner.
The Solicitor General for Respondents.
SYNOPSIS
Petitioner Rosa Uy worked as an accountant in a company owned by the

husband of Consolacion Leong. After Rosa’s resignation from the company, Rosa
and Consolacion formed a partnership in a lumber business, into which a total of
P500,000.00 was claimed to have been contributed by Consolacion, for which no
receipt was issued. When the friendship between the two turned sour,
ChanRobles CPA Review
Consolacion asked for the return of her investment, but the checks issued by
Online
Rosa for the purpose were dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Consolacion

filed a complaint against Rosa for estafa and for violation of the Bouncing Checks
Law before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
After a joint trial, the Manila Regional Trial Court acquitted Rosa of estafa but
convicted her of the charges under B.P. Blg. 22. On appeal, respondent Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.
In this petition for review on certiorari, Rosa raises the issue of whether the RTC
of Manila acquired jurisdiction over the violations of the Bouncing Checks Law.

Petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the lower court stating that none of the
essential elements constitutive of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 was shown to have
been committed in the City of Manila: (a) complainant was a resident of Makati;
(b) petitioner was a resident of Caloocan City; (c) the place of business of
ChanRobles Special Lecture
alleged partnership was located in Malabon; (d) the drawee bank was located in
Series
Malabon; and (e) the checks were all deposited for collection in Makati. No proof

has been offered that the checks were issued, delivered, dishonored or
knowledge of insufficiency of funds occurred in Manila, which are essential
elements necessary of Manila to acquire jurisdiction over the offense.
The ineluctable conclusion is that said evidence would only show that none of
the essential elements of B.P. Blg. 22 occurred in Manila. The trial court’s
acquisition of jurisdiction over the estafa case does not follow that it also
acquired jurisdiction over the violation of the Bouncing Checks Law on the
theory that the latter violations were merely incidental to the estafa case. The
crimes of estafa and violation of the Bouncing Checks Law are two different
offenses having different elements and, necessarily, for a court to acquire
jurisdiction each of the essential ingredients of each crime has to be satisfied.

The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the trial court is

reversed and set aside

July-1997 Jurisprudence SYLLABUS

G.R. No. 96649-50 July 1, 1. REMEDIAL LAW; TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES,
1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DISCUSSED. — For jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases the
LYNDON V. MACOY offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients took

place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Territorial jurisdiction in
G.R. No. 109660 July 1, criminal cases is the territory where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance
1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. or to try the offense allegedly committed therein by the accused. Thus, it cannot
ROMEO NELL take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense allegedly committed

outside of that limited territory. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court over the
G.R. No. 124914 July 2, criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information.
1997 - JESUS UGADDAN v. And once it is so shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. However, if the evidence adduced during the trial show that the offense was

committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of
G.R. No. 123074 July 4, jurisdiction.
1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
FERNANDO M. FERNANDEZ 2. ID.; ID.; ESTAFA AND VIOLATION OF BOUNCING CHECKS LAW,

DISTINGUISHED. — The crimes of estafa and violation of the Bouncing Checks
Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94- Law are two (2) different offenses having different elements and, necessarily, for
1017 July 7, 1997 - OSCAR B. a court to acquire jurisdiction each of the essential ingredients of each crime has
LAMBINO v. AMADO A. DE to be satisfied. In the crime of estafa, deceit and damage are essential elements
VERA of the offense and have to be established with satisfactory proof to warrant

conviction. For violation of the Bouncing Checks Law, on the other hand, the
Adm. Matter No. P-97-1245 elements of deceit and damage are neither essential nor required. Rather, the
July 7, 1997 - BENIGNO G. elements of B.P. Blg. 22 are (a) the making, drawing and issuance of any check
GAVIOLA v. NOEL NAVARETTE to apply to account or for value; (b) the maker, drawer or issuer knows at the

time of issuance that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the
G.R. No. 105760 July 7, drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment; and,
1997 - PNB v. COURT OF (c) the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of
APPEALS, ET AL. funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the

drawer, without valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment. Hence, it is
G.R. No. 107193 July 7, incorrect for respondent People to conclude that inasmuch as the Regional Trial
1997 - EUGENIO TENEBRO v. Court of Manila acquired jurisdiction over the estafa case then it also acquired
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. jurisdiction over the violations of B.P. Blg. 22. The crime of estafa and the

violation of B.P. Blg. 22 have to be treated as separate offenses and therefore
G.R. No. 112006 July 7, the essential ingredients of each offense have to be satisfied.
ROBERTO S. DE VERA 3. ID.; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; MOTION TO QUASH ON THE GROUND OF LACK

OF JURISDICTION; TIMELY RAISED IN CASE AT BAR. — The Revised Rules on
G.R. No. 114275 July 7, Criminal Procedure, under Rule 117, Sec. 3, provides that the accused may
1997 - IÑIGO F. CARLET v. move to quash the complaint or information on any of the following grounds: . .
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. . (b) that the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged

or over the person of the accused. Moreover, under Sec. 8 of the same Rule it is
G.R. No. 116962 July 7, provided that the failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to
1997 - MARIA SOCORRO CACA quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, either because he did
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be

deemed a waiver of the grounds of a motion to quash, except the grounds of . .
G.R. Nos. 118940-41 & . lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged . . . as provided for in paragraph .
119407 July 7, 1997 - PEOPLE . . (b) . . . of Section 3 of this Rule. After a careful perusal of the records, it is
clear that petitioner timely questioned the jurisdiction of the court in a
OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO memorandum before the Regional Trial Court and thereafter in succeeding
MEJIA, ET AL. pleadings. Even if a party fails to file a motion to quash, he may still question

the jurisdiction of the court later on. Moreover, these objections may be raised
G.R. No. 119872 July 7, or considered motu propio by the court at any stage of the proceedings or on
1997 - REMEDIOS NAVOA appeal.
RAMOS v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL. 4. ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE OF TIJAM V. SIBONGHANOY, NOT APPLICABLE. — The

ruling in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy is an exception to the general rule that the lack
G.R. No. 122206 July 7, of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on
1997 - RAFAEL ARCEGA, ET AL. appeal. In Sibonghanoy, the defense of lack of jurisdiction of the court that
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. rendered the questioned ruling was held to be barred by laches. It was ruled

that the lack of jurisdiction having been raised for the first time in a motion to
G.R. No. 105284 July 8, dismiss filed almost fifteen (15) years after the questioned ruling had been
1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. rendered, such a plea may no longer be raised for being barred by laches. As
IGNACIO ZUMIL defined in said case, laches is failure or neglect for an unreasonable and

unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could
G.R. No. 106099 July 8, or should have been done earlier; it is the negligence or omission to assert a
1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled
AGUSTIN SOTTO, ET AL. to assert has abandoned it or declined to assert it. The circumstances of the

present case are very different from Tijam v. Sibonghanoy. No judgment has yet
G.R. No. 109814 July 8, been rendered by the trial court in this case. As a matter of fact, as soon as the
1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. accused discovered the jurisdictional defect, she did not fail or neglect to file the
FERNANDO MAALAT appropriate motion to dismiss. They questioned the jurisdiction of the trial court

in a memorandum before the lower court. Hence, finding the pivotal element of
G.R. No. 112797 July 8, laches to be absent, we hold that the ruling in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy does not
1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. control the present controversy. Instead, the general rule that the question of
NIDA ALEGRO jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings must apply.

G.R. No. 114265 July 8, Petitioner is therefore not estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the trial
1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. court.
GREGORIO MAGALLANES
G.R. No. 115307 July 8, DECISION

1997 - MANUEL LAO v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.

BELLOSILLO, J.:
G.R. No. 115703 July 8,
1997 - EPIFANIO L. CASOLITA,
ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, This is an appeal by certiorari from the decision of respondent Court of Appeals
ET AL. 1 which affirmed in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Br. 32,

2 finding the accused ROSA UY guilty of violating B.P. Blg. 22 in Crim. Cases
G.R. No. 117501 July 8, Nos. 84-32335 to 84-32340, inclusive, and acquitting her of estafa under Art.
1997 - SOLID HOMES, INC. v. 315, par. 2 (a), of the Revised Penal Code in Crim. Case No. 84-32334.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

Rosa Uy was employed as an accountant in Don Tim Shipping Company owned
G.R. No. 122308 July 8, by the husband of complaining witness Consolacion Leong. During Rosa’s
1997 - PURITA S. MAPA, ET AL. employment she was regarded by the Leongs as an efficient and hardworking
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. employee. On 15 March 1982, a few months before she was to give birth, Rosa

resigned. In the meantime, she helped her husband manage their lumber
Adm. Matter No. SC-96-1 business. The friendly relations between Rosa and Consolacion continued. The
July 10, 1997 - DAMASO S. two later agreed to form a partnership with Consolacion to contribute additional
FLORES v. BERNARDO P. capital for the expansion of Rosa’s lumber business and the latter as industrial
ABESAMIS partner. Various sums of money amounting to P500,000.00 were claimed to

have been given by Consolacion for the business; however, because of the trust
Adm. Matter No. P-97-1236 they had for each other, no receipt was ever issued.
July 11, 1997 - MADONNA
MACALUA v. DOMINGO TIU, JR. Thereafter a lumber store with warehouse was constructed in Bulacan, Bulacan,

with funds contributed by Consolacion evidenced by various receipts. But,
Adm. Matter No. P-97-1249 unfortunately, the friendship between Consolacion and Rosa turned sour when
July 11, 1997 - PACITA SY the partnership documents were never processed. As a result, Consolacion
TORRES v. FROILAN S. asked for the return of her investment but the checks issued by Rosa for the
CABLING purpose were dishonored for insufficiency of funds.
G.R. No. 104865 July 11, The preceding events prompted Consolacion to file a complaint for estafa and for
1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. violation of the Bouncing Checks Law before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
VICTORIANO PONTILAR, JR.

On 10 December 1984 an Information for estafa 3 and several other
G.R. Nos. 113511-12 July Informations 4 for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 were filed against petitioner. The
11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE offenses were subsequently consolidated and tried jointly.
PHIL. v. DANILO SINOC

Through Consolacion Leong and Alexander D. Bangit the prosecution tried to
G.R. No. 115033 July 11, establish that petitioner Rosa Uy employed deceit in obtaining the amount of
1997 - PONCIANO T. P500,000.00 from complainant with respect to Crim. Case No. 84-32334. As
MATANGUIHAN, ET AL. v. regards Crim. Cases Nos. 84-32335 to 84-32340, Alexander D. Bangit, manager
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. of the Commercial Bank of Manila, Malabon Branch, where Rosa Uy maintained

an account, testified on the following transactions with respect to the six (6)
G.R. No. 123204 July 11, checks referred to in Crim. Cases Nos. 84-32335 to 84-32840 which were
1997 - NATIONWIDE SECURITY dishonored
AND ALLIED SERVICES, INC. v.
NLRC, ET AL. CHECK DATE REASON FOR
Adm. Matter No. P-95-1158 NO. PRESENTED DISHONOR

July 14, 1997 - EUFEMIA
(1) 068604 16 December 1983 Drawn Against
BERCASIO v. HERBERTO
BENITO, ET AL. Insufficient Fund
G.R. No. 106153 July 14, (DAIF)/Payment
1997 - FLORENCIO G.
BERNARDO v. COURT OF Stopped (Exh. "G")
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 108838 July 14,
1997 - PAGCOR v. COURT OF Insufficient Fund
APPEALS, ET AL.

(DAIF)/Payment
G.R. Nos. 116528-31 July
14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE Stopped (Exh. "H")
PHIL. v. MARIETO ADORA

G.R. No. 108492 July 15,
1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. Insufficient Fund
NOEL BANIEL, ET AL.

(DAIF)/Payment
G.R. No. 118078 July 15,
1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. Stopped (Exh. "F")
OSCAR VILLANUEVA

G.R. No. 123379 July 15,
1997 - BAROTAC SUGAR MILLS, Insufficient Fund
INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL. (DAIF)/Payment
G.R. Nos. 115439-41 July Stopped (Exh. "E")
16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET (5) 043122 3 January 1984 Drawn Against
AL.

Insufficient Fund
G.R. Nos. 120437-41 July
16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE (DAIF)/Payment
PHIL. v. ARMANDO ALVARIO

Stopped (Exh. "A")
Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-
1382 July 17, 1997 - REXEL M. (6) 068660 24 January 1984 Drawn Against
PACURIBOT v. RODRIGO F. LIM,
JR. Insufficient Fund
G.R. No. 105002 July 17, (DAIF)/Payment
DIARANGAN DANSAL Stopped (Exh. "I")
G.R. No. 108634 July 17, For her part, petitioner and her witnesses Fernando Abad and Antonio Sy
1997 - ANTONIO P. TAN v. maintained that no misrepresentation was committed and that the funds were
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. utilized to construct the building in Bulacan, Bulacan. With respect to the

issuance of the subject checks, petitioner did not deny their existence but
G.R. No. 111165 July 17, averred that these were issued to evidence the investment of complainant in the
1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. proposed partnership between them.
ROGELIO MERCADO, ET AL.

After a joint trial, the Manila Regional Trial Court acquitted petitioner of estafa
but convicted her of the charges under B.P. Blg. 22. 5 On appeal, respondent
G.R. No. 113257 July 17, appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court.
JOHNNY LASCOTA Petitioner now raises the following issues before us in this petition for review in

certiorari: (a) whether the RTC of Manila acquired jurisdiction over the violations
G.R. No. 114742 July 17, of the Bouncing Checks Law, and (b) whether the checks had been issued on
1997 - CARLITOS E. SILVA v. account or for value. 6

As regards the first issue, petitioner contends that the trial court never acquired
G.R. No. 118860 July 17, jurisdiction over the offenses under B.P. Blg. 22 and that assuming for the sake
1997 - ROLINDA B. PONO v. of argument that she raised the matter of jurisdiction only upon appeal to
NLRC, ET AL. respondent appellate court, still she cannot be estopped from questioning the

jurisdiction of the trial court.
G.R. No. 120262 July 17,
1997 - PAL, INC. v. COURT OF It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal
APPEALS, ET AL. cases the offense should have been committed or any one of its essential

ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Territorial
G.R. No. 125195 July 17, jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the court has jurisdiction to
1997 - SAMAHAN NG MGA take cognizance or to try the offense allegedly committed therein by the
MANGGAGAWA SA BANDOLINO, accused. Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense
ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL. allegedly committed outside of that limited territory. 7 Furthermore, the

jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by the allegations in
Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96- the complaint or information. 8 And once it is so shown, the court may validly
1362 July 18, 1997 - DSWD, ET take cognizance of the case. However, if the evidence adduced during the trial
AL. v. ANTONIO M. BELEN, ET show that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss
AL. the action for want of jurisdiction. 9
cralawnad
Adm. Matter No. RTJ-95- In the case at bar, the complaint for estafa and the various charges under B.P.
1283 July 21, 1997 - DAVID C. Blg. 22 were jointly tried before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Petitioner
NAVAL, ET AL. v. JOSE R. challenges the jurisdiction of the lower court stating that none of the essential
PANDAY, ET AL. elements constitutive of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 was shown to have been

committed in the City of Manila. She maintains that the evidence presented
G.R. No. 108488 July 21, established that (a) complainant was a resident of Makati; (b) petitioner was a
1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. resident of Caloocan City; (c) the place of business of the alleged partnership
RODENCIO NARCA, ET AL. was located in Malabon; (d) the drawee bank was located in Malabon; and, (e)

the checks were all deposited for collection in Makati. Taken altogether,
G.R. No. 111002 July 21, petitioner concludes that the said evidence would only show that none of the
1997 - PACIFIC MARITIME essential elements of B.P. Blg. 22 occurred in Manila. Respondent People of the
SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. Philippines through the Solicitor General on the one hand argues that even if
NICANOR RANAY, ET AL. there is no showing of any evidence that the essential ingredients took place or

the offense was committed in Manila, what is critical is the fact that the court
G.R. No. 117402 July 21, acquired jurisdiction over the estafa case because the same is the principal or
1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. main case and that the cases for violations of Bouncing Checks Law are merely
ROLLIE L. ALVARADO incidental to the estafa case.
G.R. No. 119184 July 21, We disagree with Respondent. The crimes of estafa and violation of the Bouncing
1997 - HEIRS OF FELICIDAD Checks Law are two (2) different offenses having different elements and,
CANQUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, necessarily, for a court to acquire jurisdiction each of the essential ingredients of
ET AL. each crime has to be satisfied.
G.R. No. 121768 July 21, In the crime of estafa, deceit and damage are essential elements of the offense
1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. and have to be established with satisfactory proof to warrant conviction. 10 For
DOMINGO CASTILLO, JR. violation of the Bouncing Checks Law, on the other hand, the elements of deceit

and damage are neither essential nor required. Rather, the elements of B.P. Blg.
G.R. Nos. 122250 & 122258 22 are (a) the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply to account or
July 21, 1997 - EDGARDO C. for value; (b) the maker, drawer or issuer knows at the time of issuance that he
NOLASCO v. COMELEC, ET AL. does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment

of such check in full upon its presentment; and, (c) the check is subsequently
G.R. No. 124347 July 21, dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have
1997 - CMS STOCK been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without valid reason,
BROKERAGE, INC. v. COURT OF ordered the bank to stop payment. 11 Hence, it is incorrect for respondent
APPEALS, ET AL. People to conclude that inasmuch as the Regional Trial Court of Manila acquired

jurisdiction over the estafa case then it also acquired jurisdiction over the
G.R. No. 125510 July 21, violations of B.P. Blg. 22. The crime of estafa and the violation of B.P. Blg. 22
1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. have to be treated as separate offenses and therefore the essential ingredients
RENATO LISING of each offense have to be satisfied.
G.R. No. 111933 July 23, In this regard, the records clearly indicate that business dealings were
1997 - PLDT v. NLRC, ET AL. conducted in a restaurant in Manila where sums of money were given to

petitioner; hence, the acquisition of jurisdiction by the lower court over the
G.R. Nos. 112429-30 July estafa case. The various charges for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 however are on a
23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE different plain. There is no scintilla of evidence to show that jurisdiction over the
PHIL. v. RODOLFO P. CAYETANO violation of B.P. Blg. 22 had been acquired. On the contrary, all that the evidence

shows is that complainant is a resident of Makati; that petitioner is a resident of
G.R. Nos. 118736-37 July Caloocan City; that the principal place of business of the alleged partnership is
23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE located in Malabon; that the drawee bank is likewise located in Malabon and that
PHIL. v. TANG WAI LAN all the subject checks were deposited for collection in Makati. Verily, no proof

has been offered that the checks were issued, delivered, dishonored or
Adm. Matter No. P-96-1205 knowledge of insufficiency of funds occurred in Manila, which are essential
July 24, 1997 - OSCAR P. DE elements necessary for the Manila Court to acquire jurisdiction over the offense.
LOS REYES v. ESTEBAN H.
ERISPE, JR. Upon the contention of respondent that knowledge on the part of the maker or

drawer of the check of the insufficiency of his funds is by itself a continuing
Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97- eventuality whether the accused be within one territory or another, the same is
1383 July 24, 1997 - JOSE still without merit. It may be true that B.P. Blg. 22 is a transitory or continuing
LAGATIC v. JOSE PEÑAS, JR., offense and such being the case the theory is that a person indicted with a
ET AL. transitory offense may be validly tried in any jurisdiction where the offense was

in part committed. We note however that knowledge by the maker or drawer of
G.R. No. 104663 July 24, the fact that he has no sufficient funds to cover the check or of having sufficient
1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. funds is simultaneous to the issuance of the instrument. We again find no iota of
DAVID SALVATIERRA proof on the records that at the time of issue, petitioner or complainant was in

Manila. As such, there would be no basis in upholding the jurisdiction of the trial
G.R. No. 105004 July 24, court over the offense.
DIONISIO MAROLLANO In an attempt to salvage the issue that the RTC of Manila had jurisdiction over

the violations of B.P. Blg. 22, respondent relies on the doctrine of jurisdiction by
G.R. No. 107723 July 24, estoppel. Respondent posits that it took some five (5) years of trial before
1997 - EMS MANPOWER & petitioner raised the issue of jurisdiction.
PLACEMENT SERVICES v. NLRC,
ET AL. The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, under Rule 117, Sec. 3, provides that

the accused may move to quash the complaint or information on any of the
G.R. No. 111211 July 24, following grounds: . . . (b) that the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over
1997 - ABS-CBN EMPLOYEES the offense charge or over the person of the accused. Moreover, under Sec. 8 of
UNION, ET AL., v. NLRC, ET AL. the same Rule it is provided that the failure of the accused to assert any ground

of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, either
G.R. No. 113235 July 24, because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said
1997 - VICTORINA MEDINA, ET motion, shall be deemed a waiver of the grounds of a motion to quash, except
AL. v. CITY SHERIFF, MANILA, the grounds of . . . lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged . . . as provided
ET AL. for in paragraph . . . (b) . . . of Section 3 of this Rule. 12
G.R. Nos. 113366-68 July After a careful perusal of the records, it is crystal clear that petitioner timely
24, 1997 - GREGORIO questioned the jurisdiction of the court in a memorandum 13 before the Regional
Trial Court and thereafter in succeeding pleadings. On this finding alone, we
ISABELO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET cannot countenance the inadvertence committed by the court. Clearly, from the
AL. abovequoted law, we can see that even if a party fails to file a motion to quash,

he may still question the jurisdiction of the court later on. Moreover, these
G.R. No. 116635 July 24, objections may be raised or considered motu propio by the court at any stage of
1997 - CONCHITA NOOL, ET AL. the proceedings or an appeal. 14
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

Assuming arguendo that there was a belated attempt to question the jurisdiction
G.R. No. 116736 July 24, of the court and hence, on the basis of the Tijam v. Sibonghanoy case 15 in
1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. which respondent seeks refuge, the petitioner should be estopped. We
BENJAMIN ORTEGA, ET AL. nonetheless find the jurisprudence of the Sibonghanoy case not in point.
G.R. No. 118458 July 24, In Calimlim v. Ramirez, 16 the Court held that the ruling in the Sibonghanoy
1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. case is an exception to the general rule that the lack of jurisdiction of a court
RICKY DELA CRUZ may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. The Court stated

further that Tijam v. Sibonghanoy is an exceptional case because of the
G.R. No. 120276 July 24, presence of laches. The Court said:
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1997 - SINGA SHIP
MANAGEMENT PHILS., INC. v. A rule that had been settled by unquestioned acceptance and upheld in decisions
NLRC, ET AL. so numerous to cite is that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of

the action is a matter of law and may not be conferred by consent or agreement
G.R. No. 121075 July 24, of the parties. The lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of
1997 - DELTA MOTORS CORP. v. the proceedings, even on appeal. This doctrine has been qualified by recent
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. pronouncements which stemmed principally from the ruling in the cited case of

Sibonghanoy. It is to be regretted, however, that the holding in said case had
G.R. No. 121867 July 24, been applied to situations which were obviously not contemplated therein. The
1997 - SMITH KLINE & FRENCH exceptional circumstance involved in Sibonghanoy which justified the departure
LAB., LTD. v. COURT OF from the accepted concept of non-waivability of objection to jurisdiction has
APPEALS, ET AL. been ignored and, instead a blanket doctrine had been repeatedly upheld that

rendered the supposed ruling in Sibonghanoy not as the exception, but rather
G.R. No. 127262 July 24, the general rule, virtually overthrowing altogether the time-honored principle
1997 - HUBERT WEBB, ET AL. that the issue of jurisdiction is not lost by waiver or by estoppel. 17
v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

In Sibonghanoy, the defense of lack of jurisdiction of the court that rendered the
Adm. Matter Nos. 95-6-55- questioned ruling was held to be barred by laches. It was ruled that the lack of
MTC & P-96-1173 July 28, 1997 jurisdiction having been raised for the first time in a motion to dismiss filed
- REPORT ON AUDIT IN THE almost fifteen (15) years after the questioned ruling had been rendered, such a
MTC OF PEÑARANDA, NUEVA plea may no longer be raised for being barred by laches. As defined in said case,
ECIJA laches is failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time,

to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done
G.R. No. 102858 July 28, earlier; it is the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable
1997 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert has abandoned
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. it or declined to assert it. 18
chanrobles.com : virtual lawlibrary
G.R. No. 103209 July 28, The circumstances of the present case are very different from Tijam v.
1997 - APOLONIO BONDOC, ET Sibonghanoy. No judgment has yet been rendered by the trial court in this case.
AL. v. NLRC, ET AL. As a matter of fact, as soon as the accused discovered the jurisdictional defect,

she did not fail or neglect to file the appropriate motion to dismiss. They
G.R. No. 110823 July 28, questioned the jurisdiction of the trial court in a memorandum before the lower
1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. court. Hence, finding the pivotal element of laches to be absent, we hold that
ROCHEL TRAVERO the ruling in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy does not control the present controversy.

Instead, the general rule that the question of jurisdiction of a court may be
G.R. No. 112323 July 28, raised at any stage of the proceedings must apply. Petitioner is therefore not
1997 - HELPMATE, INC. v. estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the trial court. 19
NLRC, ET AL.

WHEREFORE, finding the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Br. 32, to have no
jurisdiction over Crim. Case Nos. 84-32335 to 8432340, inclusive, the assailed
G.R. No. 113344 July 28, decision of respondent Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the trial court
1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. dated 24 September 1991 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, without prejudice to
ATANACIO LUTO the filing of appropriate charges against petitioner with the court of competent

jurisdiction when warranted.
G.R. No. 116668 July 28,
1997 - ERLINDA A. AGAPAY v. SO ORDERED.
CARLINA V. PALANG, ET AL.

Padilla and Vitug, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 116726 July 28,
1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. Kapunan and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., are on leave.
LEONARDO P. DE LA CRUZ
Endnotes:
G.R. No. 118822 July 28,
1997 - G.O.A.L., INC. v. COURT

OF APPEALS, ET AL.
1. CA-G.R. CR No. 13428, Decision penned by Justice Lourdes Tayao-

Jaguros, concurred in by Justices Jesus M. Elbinias and Bernardo L.

G.R. No. 119000 July 28,
Salas.
1997 - ROSA UY v. COURT OF

APPEALS, ET AL.
2. Judge Benjamin P. Martinez presiding.
G.R. No. 119649 July 28,

3. Crim. Case No. 84-32334; Records, pp. 1-2.
1997 - RICKY GALICIA, ET AL.

v. NLRC, ET AL.
4. Crim. Cases Nos. 84-32335 to 84-32240; id., p. 1.
G.R. No. 119868 July 28,

5. Rollo, pp. 66-78, with the following disposition:
1997 - PAL, INC. v. NLRC, ET

AL.
1. In Criminal Case No. 84-32334, on reasonable doubt, Accused

Rosa Uy is hereby acquitted of the charge of Estafa;
G.R. No. 120072 July 28,
1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. 2. In Criminal Case Nos. 84-32335 to 84-32340, the court finds,
FLORENTINO I. MESA Accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Batas

Pambansa Bilang 22. Accordingly, Accused is hereby sentenced as
G.R. No. 123361 July 28, follows:
1997 - TEOFILO CACHO v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. a. In Criminal Case No. 84-32335, to suffer a definite prison term of

six (6) months and to pay the private complainant an indemnity of
G.R. No. 126556 July 28, P50,000.00 plus legal interest from the filing of the complaint until
1997 - NELSON C. DAVID v. the same is fully paid;

b. In Criminal Case No. 84-32336, to suffer a definite prison term of
G.R. No. 117742 July 29, six (6) months and to pay the private complainant an indemnity of
1997 - GEORGE M. TABERRAH P50,000.00 plus legal interest from the filing of the complaint until
v. NLRC, ET AL. the same is fully paid;
SBC Case No. 519 July 31, c. In Criminal Case No. 84-32337, to suffer a definite prison term of
1997 - PATRICIA FIGUEROA v. six (6) months and to pay the private complainant an indemnity of
SIMEON BARRANCO, JR. P50,000.00 plus legal interest from the filing of the complaint until

the same is fully paid;
G.R. No. 97369 July 31,
1997 - P.I. MANPOWER d. In Criminal Case No. 84-32338, to suffer a definite prison term of
PLACEMENTS, INC. v. NLRC, ET six (6) months and to pay the private complainant an indemnity of
AL. P50,000.00 plus legal interest from the filing of the complaint until

the same is fully paid;
G.R. No. 99030 July 31,
1997 - PLDT v. NLRC, ET AL. e. In Criminal Case No. 84-32339, to suffer a definite prison term of

six (6) months and to pay the private complainant an indemnity of
G.R. No. 106582 July 31, P50,000.00 plus legal interest from the filing of the complaint until
1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. the same is fully paid;
RUPERTO BALDERAS

f. In Criminal Case No. 84-32340, to suffer a definite prison term of
G.R. No. 107802 July 31, six (6) months and to pay the private complainant on indemnity of
1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. P50,000.00 plus legal interest from the filing of the complaint until
JASON NAREDO the same is fully paid;
G.R. No. 108399 July 31, SO ORDERED.
1997 - RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III,
ET AL. v. ROBERT MIRASOL, ET 6. Id., pp. 19-22.
AL.

7. U.S. v. Cunanan, 26 Phil. 376-378 (1913).
G.R. No. 108619 July 31,
1997 - EPIFANIO LALICAN v. 8. Colmenares v. Villar, No. L-27124, 29 May 1970, 33 SCRA 186.
FILOMENO A. VERGARA, ET AL.

9. People v. Galano, No. L-42925, 31 January 1977, 75 SCRA 193.
G.R. No. 113689 July 31,
1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. 10. People v. Gorospe, G.R. Nos. 74053-54, 20 January 1988, 157
FELIPE SANGIL, SR. SCRA 154.
G.R. No. 113958 July 31, 11. Navarro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 112389-90, 1 August
1997 - BANANA GROWERS 1994, 234 SCRA 639.
COLLECTIVE, ET AL. v. NLRC,
ET AL. 12. Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
G.R. No. 116060 July 31, 13. Rollo, pp. 103-104.
CLEMENTE DE LA PEÑA 14. Suy Sui v. People, 49 O.G. 967.
G.R. No. 116292 July 31, 15. Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, No. L-21450, 15 April 1968, 23 SCRA 29.
JIMMY PEÑERO 16. No. L-34362, 19 November 1982, 118 SCRA 399, Dy v. NLRC,

G.R. No. 68544, 27 OCTOBER 1989, 145 SCRA 211.
G.R. No. 119068 July 31,
1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. 17. People v. Eduarte, G.R. No. 88232, 26 February 1990, 182 SCRA
DANTE CASTRO, ET AL. 750, citing Calimlim v. Ramirez, No. L-34362, 19 November 1982,

118 SCRA 399.
G.R. No. 121027 July 31,
1997 - CORAZON DEZOLLER 18. Ibid.
TISON, ET AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL. 19. Ibid.

G.R. No. 121157 July 31,

1997 - HEIRS OF SEGUNDA

MANINGDING, ET AL. v. COURT

OF APPEALS, ET AL. Back to Home | Back to Main

G.R. No. 123561 July 31,

1997 - DELIA R. NERVES v.
CSC, ET AL.

G.R. No. 124678 July 31,

1997 - DELIA BANGALISAN, ET
AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.
Copyright © 1995 - 2022 REDiaz

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence: Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence: Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence: Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10/13/22, 1:55 PM G.R. No. 119000 July 28, 1997 - ROSA UY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

July 1997 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

ChanRobles On-Line Bar [G.R. No. 119000. July 28, 1997.]

Rolando P. Quimbo for Petitioner.

The Solicitor General for Respondents.

Petitioner Rosa Uy worked as an accountant in a company owned by the

July-1997 Jurisprudence SYLLABUS

1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.

1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.

RAMOS v. COURT OF APPEALS,

G.R. No. 115307 July 8, DECISION

1997 - EPIFANIO L. CASOLITA,

COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

July 11, 1997 - MADONNA

VICTORIANO PONTILAR, JR.

PHIL. v. DANILO SINOC

AND ALLIED SERVICES, INC. v.

NLRC, ET AL. CHECK DATE REASON FOR

Adm. Matter No. P-95-1158 NO. PRESENTED DISHONOR

(1) 068604 16 December 1983 Drawn Against

BENITO, ET AL. Insufficient Fund

G.R. No. 106153 July 14, (DAIF)/Payment

BERNARDO v. COURT OF Stopped (Exh. "G")

G.R. No. 108838 July 14,

1997 - PAGCOR v. COURT OF Insufficient Fund

G.R. Nos. 116528-31 July

14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE Stopped (Exh. "H")

PHIL. v. MARIETO ADORA

G.R. No. 108492 July 15,

1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. Insufficient Fund

NOEL BANIEL, ET AL.

G.R. No. 118078 July 15,

1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. Stopped (Exh. "F")

G.R. No. 123379 July 15,

1997 - BAROTAC SUGAR MILLS, Insufficient Fund

INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET

G.R. Nos. 115439-41 July Stopped (Exh. "E")

16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET (5) 043122 3 January 1984 Drawn Against

G.R. Nos. 120437-41 July

16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE (DAIF)/Payment

PHIL. v. ARMANDO ALVARIO

Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-

PACURIBOT v. RODRIGO F. LIM,

JR. Insufficient Fund

G.R. No. 105002 July 17, (DAIF)/Payment

1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.

DIARANGAN DANSAL Stopped (Exh. "I")

ROGELIO MERCADO, ET AL.

1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.

COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 120262 July 17,

LOS REYES v. ESTEBAN H.

1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.

PLACEMENT SERVICES v. NLRC,