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
