Case Digest: De Villa vs CA et.al., G.R. No. 87416

De Villa vs CA et.al., G.R. No. 87416, April 8, 1991

Subject: Statutory Construction

FACTS

This petition for review on certiorari seeks to reverse and set aside the decision* of the Court of Appeals promulgated on February 1, 1989, in CA-G.R. SP No. 16071 entitled "Cecilio S. de Villa vs. Judge Job B. Madayag, etc. and Roberto Z. Lorayes," dismissing the petition for certiorari filed therein.

On October 5, 1987, petitioner Cecilio S. de Villa was charged before the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region (Makati, Branch 145) with violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.

After arraignment and after private respondent had testified on direct examination, petitioner moved to dismiss the Information on the following grounds: (a) Respondent court has no jurisdiction over the offense charged; and (b) That no offense was committed since the check involved was payable in dollars, hence, the obligation created is null and void pursuant to Republic Act No. 529 (An Act to Assure Uniform Value of Philippine Coin and Currency).

Petitioner argues that the check in question was drawn against the dollar account of petitioner with a foreign bank, and is therefore, not covered by the Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Blg. 22).

On July 19, 1988, respondent court issued its first questioned orders stating accused's motion to dismiss dated July 5, 1988, is denied for lack of merit. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but his motion was subsequently denied by respondent court.

Petitioner then filed for certiorari seeking to declare the nullity of the aforequoted orders dated July 19, 1988, and September 6, 1988, in the CA. On February 1, 1989, CA dismissed the petition for review. A motion for reconsideration of the said decision was filed by the petitioner on February 7, 1989, but the same was denied by the Court of Appeals in its resolution dated March 3, 1989. Hence this petition.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Regional Trial Court of Makati has jurisdiction over the case in question.

RULING

Yes, the trial court's jurisdiction over the case, subject of this review, cannot be questioned.

Under a cardinal principle in statutory construction that where the law does not distinguish courts should not distinguish. Parenthetically, the rule is that where the law does not make any exception, courts may not except something unless compelling reasons exist to justify it.

In this case, citing a decided case where SC ruled "that jurisdiction or venue is determined by the allegations in the information." The information under consideration specifically alleged that the offense was committed in Makati, Metro Manila and therefore, the same is controlling and sufficient to vest jurisdiction upon the Regional Trial Court of Makati. The Court acquires jurisdiction over the case and over the person of the accused upon the filing of a complaint or information in court which initiates a criminal action. it is undisputed that the check in question was executed and delivered by the petitioner to herein private respondent at Makati, Metro Manila. The currency is immaterial under the Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Blg. 22), foreign checks, provided they are either drawn or issued in the Philippines though payable outside thereof are within the coverage of said law.