De Villa vs. Court of Appeals

Venue for prosecution under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 is determined by the place of issuance and delivery of the check, and the Bouncing Checks Law applies to checks in any currency, including U.S. dollar checks drawn against foreign bank accounts, because the statute does not distinguish among currencies and the legislative intent clearly encompasses foreign-currency obligations.

Petitioner Cecilio S. de Villa issued Depositors Trust Company Check No. 3371, drawn on his U.S. dollar account, payable to private respondent Roberto Z. Lorayez in the amount of U.S. $2,500.00 (equivalent to ₱50,000.00). The check was dishonored for insufficient funds, and upon receiving notice of dishonor, petitioner failed to pay or make arrangements for full payment within five banking days. An information charging violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 was subsequently filed in the Regional Trial Court of Makati.

• Nature: Petitioner was charged with violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 145.
• The Check: On or about April 3, 1987, petitioner issued Depositors Trust Company Check No. 3371 antedated March 31, 1987, in the amount of U.S. $2,500.00 (equivalent to ₱50,000.00), drawn against petitioner’s U.S. dollar account, payable to private respondent Roberto Z. Lorayez. The check was executed and delivered in Makati, Metro Manila.
• Dishonor and Notice: Upon presentment within ninety days, the check was dishonored for “INSUFFICIENT FUNDS.” Despite receipt of notice of dishonor, petitioner failed to pay the amount or make arrangements for full payment within five banking days.
• Motion to Dismiss: After arraignment and the direct examination of the private complainant, petitioner moved to dismiss the information. The grounds were: (a) the trial court had no jurisdiction over the offense because the check was drawn against a dollar account maintained with a foreign bank; and (b) no offense was committed because the obligation created by the dollar check was null and void pursuant to Republic Act No. 529 (An Act to Assure Uniform Value of Philippine Coin and Currency), rendering it unenforceable in any civil or criminal suit within the Philippines.
• Trial Court Orders: The RTC denied the motion to dismiss on July 19, 1988, and denied reconsideration on September 6, 1988. The trial court ruled that foreign checks drawn and issued in the Philippines, or made payable and dishonored in the Philippines, are within the coverage of B.P. Blg. 22, and that the law likewise applies to checks drawn against current accounts in foreign currency.

• Lack of Jurisdiction: Petitioner argued that because the check was drawn against a dollar account maintained with a foreign bank outside the Philippines, the Regional Trial Court of Makati had no jurisdiction over the offense; Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 could not have been intended to extend its coverage to dollar accounts situated beyond Philippine territory.
• Nullity Under Republic Act No. 529: Petitioner contended that even assuming the check was issued in connection with a private transaction, payment in dollars would violate Republic Act No. 529, thus rendering the obligation null and void and unenforceable in any Philippine court, whether in a civil or criminal action.

• Coverage of B.P. Blg. 22: Respondents maintained that under the Bouncing Checks Law, foreign checks drawn and issued in the Philippines, or made payable and dishonored in the Philippines, are covered, and that the statute applies to checks drawn against current accounts in foreign currency without distinction.
• Venue and Jurisdiction: Respondents asserted that the trial court properly acquired jurisdiction because the information alleged the offense was committed in Makati, and venue for B.P. Blg. 22 lies at the place where the check was executed and delivered—both of which occurred in Makati.

• Jurisdiction and Venue: Whether the Regional Trial Court of Makati had jurisdiction over a criminal prosecution under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 where the check was drawn in U.S. dollars against a foreign bank account but was executed, delivered, and dishonored in Makati.
• Coverage of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22: Whether Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 applies to checks drawn in foreign currency against foreign bank accounts.
• Effect of Republic Act No. 529: Whether the asserted nullity of the obligation under Republic Act No. 529 precludes criminal liability under the Bouncing Checks Law.

• Jurisdiction and Venue: The Regional Trial Court of Makati properly acquired jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the information, which specifically stated that the offense was committed in Makati, Metro Manila. Under Sections 10 and 15(a), Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, venue lies where the offense was committed or any essential ingredient thereof took place. For violations of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, the determinative factor is the place of issuance and delivery of the check—the delivery being the final act essential to the consummation of the obligation. As the check was undisputedly executed and delivered in Makati, the trial court validly exercised jurisdiction.
• Coverage of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22: Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 covers checks in any currency, including U.S. dollar checks drawn against foreign bank accounts. The law does not distinguish among currencies, and applying the principle of ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus, courts should not introduce distinctions where the statute makes none. The legislative records of the Batasang Pambansa explicitly confirm that the lawmakers intended the statute to apply to checks in any currency, including U.S. dollar checks, French francs, Japanese yen, or German marks.
• Effect of Republic Act No. 529: The assertion that the underlying obligation was null and void under Republic Act No. 529 did not divest the trial court of jurisdiction or negate the criminal charge. The criminal offense under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 arises from the act of issuing a worthless check, irrespective of the validity of the underlying obligation; the statute is a malum prohibitum designed to ensure the integrity of commercial paper. No compelling reason existed to except dollar-denominated checks from the law’s coverage.

• Venue in B.P. 22 cases — Venue for prosecution under the Bouncing Checks Law lies at the place where the check was executed and delivered. The delivery of the check is the final act essential to its consummation as an obligation, and the determinative factor for venue is the place of issuance and delivery. This principle was drawn from Ministry of Justice Memorandum Circular No. 4 (December 15, 1981), which adopted the ruling in People vs. Yabut and its progeny.
• Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus — Where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish. No exception may be implied unless compelling reasons exist. Because Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 does not differentiate among currencies, courts cannot restrict its application to Philippine-peso checks.
• Legislative intent ascertained from deliberations — When statutory meaning is doubtful, courts may examine the actual proceedings and deliberations of the legislative body to determine the construction intended. The floor discussions of the Batasang Pambansa on B.P. Blg. 22 expressly stated that the law applies to checks in any currency.

• “Under the Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Blg. 22), foreign checks, provided they are either drawn and issued in the Philippines though payable outside thereof, . . . are within the coverage of said law.”
• “It is a cardinal principle in statutory construction that where the law does not distinguish courts should not distinguish.”
• “The determinative factor (in determining venue) is the place of the issuance of the check.”

• People vs. Hon. Manzanilla, 156 SCRA 279 (1987) — Followed: Jurisdiction or venue is determined by the allegations in the information.
• Que vs. People of the Philippines, 154 SCRA 160 (1987) — Applied: The determinative factor in venue for B.P. Blg. 22 is the place of the issuance of the check.
• People vs. Yabut, 76 SCRA 624 (1977) — Applied: Underpinned the Ministry of Justice guidelines on venue for bouncing checks cases.
• Philippine British Assurance Co., Inc. vs. IAC, 150 SCRA 520 (1987) — Cited: Where the law does not make any exception, courts may not except something unless compelling reasons exist.
• Palanca vs. City of Manila, 41 Phil. 125 (1920); Arenas vs. City of San Carlos, 82 SCRA 318 (1978) — Cited: Courts may consult legislative proceedings to determine statutory construction.

• Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) — Applied: The statute penalizing the making or drawing and issuance of a check without sufficient funds was held to cover checks in any currency, including those drawn against foreign bank accounts, as long as the check was issued and dishonored within Philippine jurisdiction.
• Sections 10 and 15(a), Rule 110 of the Rules of Court — Applied: These provisions govern venue in criminal actions and provide that jurisdiction lies in the court of the territory where the offense was committed or any essential ingredient thereof took place. The information’s allegation that the offense occurred in Makati was sufficient to confer jurisdiction.
• Republic Act No. 529 — Cited by petitioner: The currency uniformity statute was invoked to assert nullity of the underlying dollar obligation. The Court did not find it a bar to criminal prosecution under B.P. Blg. 22.

Melencio-Herrera, Padilla, Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ., concurred.