ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 136348. January 27, 1999]

PATRICIO LAYSA vs. LETECIA LO

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 27, 1999.

G.R. No. 136348 (Patricio Laysa vs. Letecia Lo.)

Petitioner Patricio Laysa, assails the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Camarines Sur in its Special Civil Action No. P-81-98 reversing the decision of the Municipal Trial Court of Pili, Camarines Sur.

In a nutshell, petitioner questioned before the RTC the decision of the MTC of Pili, Camarines Sur, contending, among other things, that the said MTC had no jurisdiction to try cases therein because the checks in question were delivered in Polangui, Albay. Respondents asserts that in determining the venue for violation of B.P. 22, what is of decisive is the place of issuance and delivery of the checks in question.

The RTC, in ordering the dismissal of the complaints against respondent, held that indeed the MTC of Pili, Camarines Sur had no jurisdiction as the delivery of the checks were made at Polangui, Albay, and emphatically stressed that it is the delivery of the instrument which is the final act of its consummation as an obligation.

On the contrary, petitioner asserts that violations of B.P. 22 are categorized as continuing, hence a person charged with a transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or territory where the offense was in fact committed. Furthermore, it is contended that in determining the proper venue of criminal action, it is necessary to take into consideration the element material and essential to each crime and the requisite to its consummation as an offense. Petitioner concludes that while it is true that in determining the venue for violation of B.P. 22, the places of issuance and delivery are regarded as determinative factors, this doctrine is qualified by a ruling to the effect that knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of insufficiency of funds at the time of issuance and delivery of the check is also an essential element of the offense charged.

It is of sound judicial policy that this Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress denied cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts or unless exceptional and compelling circumstances justify availment of a remedy within and calling for the exercise of primary jurisdiction. The propensity of lawyers to disregard the hierarchy of courts must be put to a halt. Consequently, the petition is hereby dismissed, without prejudice to its refiling with the Court of Appeals.

It should also be noted that the petition contains a defective verification which in itself fully justifies the outright dismissal of the petition.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE