1. Buaya v. Judge Polo

TodayisThursday,January22,2015

RepublicofthePhilippinesSUPREMECOURT

Manila

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.L75079January26,1989

SOLEMNIDADM.BUAYA,petitioner,vs.THEHONORABLEWENCESLAOM.POLO,PresidingJudge,BranchXIX,RegionalTrial)CourtofManilaandtheCOUNTRYBANKERSINSURANCECORPORATION,respondents.

ApolinarioM.Buayaforpetitioner.

RomeoG.VelasquezforrespondentCountryBankersInsuranceCorporation.

PARAS,J.:

Petitioner,SolemnidadM.Buaya,intheinstantpetitionforcertiorari,seekstoannulandsetasidetheordersofdenial issued by the respondent Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XIX on her Motion toQuash/Dismiss and Motion for Reconsideration in Criminal Case No. L8322252 entitled "People of thePhilippines vs. SolemnidadM.Buaya." TheMotion to Dismiss was anchored on the following grounds (a) thecourthasnojurisdictionoverthecaseand(b)thesubjectmatterispurelycivilinnature.

Itappearsthatpetitionerwasaninsuranceagentoftheprivaterespondent,whowasauthorizedtotransactandunderwrite insurance business and collect the corresponding premiums for and in behalf of the privaterespondent.Under thetermsof theagencyagreement, thepetitioner isrequiredtomakeaperiodicreportandaccountingofhertransactionsandremitpremiumcollectionstotheprincipalofficeofprivaterespondentlocatedintheCityofManila.Allegedly,anauditwasconductedonpetitioner'saccountwhichshowedashortageintheamount of P358,850.72. As a result she was charged with estafa in Criminal Case No. 8322252, before theRegional TrialCourt ofManila,BranchXIXwith the respondentHon.WenceslaoPolo as thePresiding Judge.Petitionerfiledamotiontodismiss.whichmotionwasdeniedbyrespondentJudgeinhisOrderdatedMarch26,1986.Thesubsequentmotionforreconsiderationofthisorderofdenialwasalsodenied.

ThesetwoOrdersofdenialarenowthesubjectof thepresentpetition.It isthecontentionofpetitionerthattheRegionaltrialCourtofManilahasnojurisdictionbecausesheisbasedinCebuCityandnecessarilythefundssheallegedlymisappropriatedwerecollectedinCebuCity.

Petitionerfurthercontendsthatthesubjectmatterofthiscaseispurelycivilinnaturebecausethefactthatprivaterespondent separately filedCivilCaseNo.8314931 involving the sameallegedmisappropriatedamount is an

acceptancethatthesubjecttransactioncomplainedofisnotproperforacriminalaction.

Therespondentsontheotherhand,callforadherencetotheconsistentrulethatthedenialofamotiontodismissor toquash,being interlocutory incharacter,cannotbequestionedbycertiorariand itcannotbe thesubjectofappeal until final judgment or order rendered (See. 2,Rule 41,Rules ofCourt). the ordinary procedure to befollowedinsuchacaseistoenteraPlea,gototrialandifthedecisionisadverse,reiteratetheissueonappealfromthefinaljudgment(NewsweekInc.v.IAC,142SCRA171).

Thegeneralruleiscorrectlystated.Butthisissubjecttocertainexceptionsthereasonisthatitwouldbeunfairtorequirethedefendantoraccusedtoundergotheordealandexpenseofatrialifthecourthasnojurisdictionoverthesubjectmatteroroffenseoritisnotthecourtofpropervenue.

Here,petitionerquestionsthejurisdictionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofManilatotakecognizanceofthiscriminalcaseforestafa.

It iswellsettledthat theaverments inthecomplaintor informationcharacterizethecrimetobeprosecutedandthecourtbeforewhichitmustbetried(Balitev.People,L21475,Sept.30,1966citedinPeoplev.Masilang,142SCRA680).

InVillanuevav.Ortiz,etal.(L15344,May30,1960,108Phil,493)thisCourtruledthatinordertodeterminethejurisdictionofthecourtincriminalcases,thecomplaintmustbeexaminedforthepurposeofascertainingwhetherornotthefactssetoutthereinandthepunishmentprovidedforbylawfallwithinthejurisdictionofthecourtwherethecomplaintisfiled.Thejurisdictionofcourtsincriminalcasesisdeterminedbytheallegationsofthecomplaintorinformation,andnotbythefindingsthecourtmaymakeafterthetrial(Peoplev.Mission,87Phil.641).

Theinformationinthecaseatreadsasfollows:

TheundersignedaccusesSolemnidadBuayaofthecrimeofestafa,committedasfollows:

That during the period 1980 to June 15, 1982, inclusive, in the City of Manila,Philippines, the said accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniouslydefraud theCountryBankers InsuranceCorporation representedbyElmerBanezdulyorganizedandearthunderthelawsofthePhilippinewithprincipaladdressat9thfloor,G.R.AntonioBldg.,T.M.Kalaw,Ermita,insaidCity,inthefollowingmanner,towit.thesaid having been authorized to act as insurance agent of said corporation, amongwhosedutieswere to remit collectionsdue fromcustomers thereatand toaccount forandturnoverthesametothesaidCountryBankersInsuranceCorporationrepresentedby Elmer Banez, as soon as possible or immediately upon demand, collected andreceived the amount of P368,850.00 representing payments of insurance premiumsfrom customers, but herein accused, once in possession of said amount, far fromcomplyingwithheraforesaidobligation, failedand refused todo soandwith intent todefraud, absconded with the whole amount thereby misappropriated, misapplied andconvertedthesaidamountofP358,850.00toherownpersonalusedandbenefit,tothedamageandprejudiceofsaidCountryBankersInsuranceCorporationintheamountofP358,850.00PhilippineCurrency.

CONTRARYTOLAW.(p.44,Rollo)

Section14(a),Rule110oftheRevisedRulesofCourtprovides:Inallcriminalprosecutionstheactionshallbeinstitutedandtried inthecourtof themunicipalityorprovincewhereintheoffensewascommittedoranyof theessentialelementsthereoftookplace.

The subject information charges petitioner with estafa committed "during the period 1980 to June 15, 1982inclusiveintheCityofManila,Philippines...."(p.44,Rollo)

Clearlythen,fromtheveryallegationoftheinformationtheRegionalTrialCourtofManilahasjurisdiction.

Besides,thecrimeofestafaisacontinuingortransitoryoffensewhichmaybeprosecutedattheplacewhereanyoftheessentialelementsofthecrimetookplace.Oneoftheessentialelementsofestafaisdamageorprejudicetotheoffendedparty.TheprivaterespondenthasitsprincipalplaceofbusinessandofficeatManila.ThefailureofthepetitionertoremittheinsurancepremiumsshecollectedallegedlycauseddamageandprejudicetoprivaterespondentinManila.

Anentpetitionersothercontentionthatthesubjectmatterispurelycivilinnature,sufficeittostatethatevidentiaryfactsonthispointhavestilltobeproved.

WHEREFORE, thepetition isDISMISSEDfor lackofmeritThecase isremandedto theRegionalTrialCourtofManila,BranchXIXforfurtherproceedings.

SOORDERED.

MelencioHerrera,(Chairperson),Padilla,SarmientoandRegaladoJJ.,concur.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation