Transportadores por banda

Bigamy being defined by Article 349 as the contracting "of a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceeding," it is self-evident that the place where the first marriage was celebrated is immaterial to the criminal act, intent and responsibility of the accused.

What is essential is that the first marriage be not legally terminated, actually or by legal presumption, when the subsequent wedlock takes place; and it is upon the celebration of that subsequent marriage that bigamy is committed, not before.

The continued existence of the first marriage is without definite locus.

To hold with the trial court that the celebration of the first marriage was an essential ingredient of the bigamy is to assume that when the petitioner married his first wife, he did so with intent already to marry his second consort; and there is nothing on record to warrant such assumption.

Davao outside the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent court, and in all criminal prosecutions, the actions must be instituted and tried in the municipality or province where the offense or any of its essential ingredients was committed, the Court of First Instance for the province of Iloilo is devoid of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the crime charged.

Venue in Estafa

a. A bicycle was purchased by the owner of a tobacco factory in the municipality ofObando, in the province ofBulacan, to be used by defendant, an employee, on condition that it was to be returned to the owner of the factory at the termination of his employment, in the municipality of Malabon, province of Rizal.

Defendant sold the bicycle to a third person who lived in the municipality of Obando.

Defendant having failed to comply with his obligation to the owner of the bicycle in Malabon, the crime charged against him was committed in that municipality, and the justice of the peace in Malabon had jurisdiction to hear and determine the case.

b. Estafa is a continuing or transitory offense which may be prosecuted at the place where any of the essential elements of the crime took place.

One of the essential elements of estafa is damage or prejudice to the offended party.

Where the respondent has its principal place of business and office in Manila, the failure of petitioner (accused) to remit the insurance premiums she collected caused damage and prejudice to private respondent in Manila, the Regional Trial Court of Manila has jurisdiction.

c. C, entered into a contract at Manila, by virtue of which he was obligated to render accounts to his principal in Manila.

Under said contract, C collected certain moneys for his principal in Cebu and failed to account for same to his principal in Manila.

HELD: The court of Manila had jurisdiction over the offense of estafa committed, as the contract of employment was made in Manila.

d. An agent who is entrusted with collecting payments on policies for an insurance company and who collects such a payment in Iloilo and appropriates the same to his own use there though by his contract, the premium collected were payable at the office of the company in Manila, may be tried for estafa in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo or of Manila.

Estafa by Issuing a Bouncing Check

The general principles governing jurisdiction in cases of estafa punishable under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code have been defined in People v. Yabut, to wit:

"Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check under Art. 315, par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code may be a transitory or continuing offense.

Its basic elements of deceit and damage, may independently arise in separate places.

In the event of such occurrence, the institution of the criminal action in either place is legally allowed. Section 14(a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: 'In all criminal prosecutions, the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province wherein the offense was committed or any one of the essential ingredients thereof took place.

The theory is that a person indicted with a transitory offense may be validly tried in any jurisdiction where the offense was in part com- mitted.

However, if all the acts material and essential to the crime and requisite of its consummation occurred in one municipality or province, such has the sole jurisdiction to try the case."

The Place of Delivery of Check

The place where the bills were written, signed, or dated does not necessarily fix or determine the place where they were executed.

What is of decisive importance is the delivery thereof the consummation as an obligation.

An undelivered bill or note is inoperative.

Until delivery, the contract is revocable. And the issuance as well as the delivery of the check must be to a person who takes it as a holder, which means "(t)he payee or indorsee of a bill or note, who is in possession of it, or the bearer thereof."

Delivery of the check signifies transfer of possession, whether actual or constructive from one person to another with intent to transfer title thereto.

The venue of the offense lies at the place where the check was executed and delivered to the payee.

Where it was in Malolos, Bulacan where the checks were uttered and delivered to complainant at which place, her business and residence were also located, the criminal pros- ecution of estafa may be lodged therein.

The giving of the checks by the two private respondents in Caloocan City to a messenger and part time employee cannot be treated as valid delivery of the checks, because a mere "messenger" or "part-time employee" is not an agent of complainant.

The Place Where Obligation Was Constituted

The place where the obligation was constituted is also a valid basis for criminal jurisdiction to attach in a prosecution for estafa.

Where, the place of business of the offended party, is in Malolos, Bulacan, from where the tire and gas purchases were made by the two private respondents, payment thereof should be considered effected in Malolos, Bulacan."

(I)f the undertaking is to deliver a determinate thing, the payment shall be made wherever the thing might be at the moment the obligation was constituted.

The receipt by the two private respondents at Caloocan City of the tires and gas supplies from Malolos, Bulacan, signifies but the consummation of the contract between the parties.

It was the result of an obligation previously contracted at Malolos, Bulacan.

Since the instant case, it was in Malolos, Bulacan, where the checks were uttered and delivered to complainant at which place, her business and residence were also located, the criminal prosecution of estafa may be lodged therein.

In a case, two checks were issued and signed by the accused in connection with the beer purchases made by him on various occasion at Guiguinto, Bulacan and which checks he

handed and delivered to the sales supervisor of SMC, Mr. Ruben Cornelio, who holds office in that municipality.

The two checks were deposited by SMC at the BPI, San Fernando, Pampanga, where it maintained its accounts after receiving these checks from its Guiguinto Sales Office which bank later on made the corresponding deductions from the account of SMC in the amounts covered by the dishonored checks upon receiving information that the checks so issued by the accused had been dishonored by the drawee bank at Santa Maria, Bulacan.

A case of estafa and violation of B.P. Big. 22 was filed against the accused in Pampanga, the accused contested the jurisdiction of the court.

The Supreme Court held:

"As regards the Estafa case: While the subject check was issued in Guiguinto, Bulacan, it was not completely drawn thereat, but in San Fernando, Pampanga, where it was uttered and delivered.

Although the check was received by the SMC Supervisor at Guiguinto, Bulacan, that was not the delivery in contemplation of law to the payee, SMC.

Said supervisor was not the person who could take the check as a holder, that is, as a payee or indorsee thereof, with the intent to transfer title thereto.

The issuance as well as the delivery of the check must be to a person who takes it as a holder, which means the payee or indorsee of the bill or note, who is in possession of it, or the bearer thereof.

The element of deceit, therefore, took place in San Fernando, Pampanga, where the check was legally issued and delivered so that jurisdiction could properly be laid upon the court in that locality."

As Regards the Bouncing Check

The offense also appears to be continuing.

True, the offense is committed by the very fact of its performance and the Bouncing Checks Law penalizes not only the fact of dishonor of a check but also the act of making or drawing and issuance of a bouncing check.

The case, therefore, could have been filed also in Bulacan.

The determinative factor (in determining venue) is the place of the issuance of the check.

But it is also true that knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of the check of the insufficiency of his funds which is an essential ingredient of the offense is by itself a continuing eventuality, whether the accused be within one territory or another.

Hence, jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense also lies in the ETC of Pampanga.

KNOWLEDGE BY DRAWER OF INSUFFICIENCY AND