CECILIO S. DE VILLA, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HONORABLE JOB B. MADAYAG, and ROBERTO Z. LORAYES, Respondents; G.R. No. 87416. April 8, 1991

RATIONALE:

WHERE THE LAW DOES NOT DISTINGUISHED, WE SHOULD NOT DISTINGUISH. — It will be noted that the law does not distinguish the currency involved in the case. As the trial court correctly ruled in its order dated July 5, 1988: "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.

WHERE THE LAW DOES NOT MAKE ANY EXCEPTION, COURTS MAY NOT EXCEPT. — Where the law does not make any exception, courts may not except something unless compelling reasons exist to justify it (Phil. British Assurance Co., Inc. v. IAC, 150 SCRA 520 [1987]).

COURTS MAY AVAIL OF LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES OF DOUBTFUL MEANING. — Courts may avail themselves of the actual proceedings of the legislative body to assist in determining the construction of a statute of doubtful meaning (Palanca v. City of Manila, 41 Phil. 125 [1920]). Thus, where there is doubts as to what a provision of a statute means, the meaning put to the provision during the legislative deliberation or discussion on the bill may be adopted (Arenas v. City of San Carlos, 82 SCRA 318 [1978]).

FACTS:

1. On or about 03 April 1987, in the municipality of Makati, accused, herein petitioner Cecilio DE VILLA drew and issued a Depositors Trust Company with check no. 3371 antedated 31 March 1987 in the amount of $2,500.00 equivalent to P50,000.00 to Roberto Z. LORAYEZ.

2. Said accused issued said check despite knowing that he had no sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank at the time of issuance.

3. It was presented within 90 days and was subsequently dishonored due to "INSUFFICIENT FUNDS." 

4. Despite receipt of dishonor, the accused failed to settle his obligation in the amount of Php50,000.00 or to make an arrangement for full payment within 5 banking days after the notice's receipt.

5. Accused moved to dismiss the Information on the 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). and cannot be subjected to BP blg. 22.

6. RTC Makati, in its July 19, 1988 order, dismissed the motion to dismiss for lack of merit.

‘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, or made payable and dishonored in the Philippines though drawn and issued outside thereof, are within the coverage of said law. The law likewise applied to checks drawn against current accounts in foreign currency.’

8. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was likewise denied. 

9. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before CA but it was dismissed.

10. Hence, this petition. 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).

ISSUE:

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

2. Whether or not the check in question, being drawn against the dollar account of the petitioner in a foreign bank, is covered by BP blg. 22. 

RULING:

1. YES. RTC Makati has jurisdiction over the said case.

Rule 110 of the Rules of Court

Sec. 10. Place of the commission of the offense. The complaint or information is sufficient if it can be understood therefrom that the offense was committed or some of the essential ingredients thereof occurred at some place within the jurisdiction of the court, unless the particular place wherein it was committed constitutes an essential element of the offense or is necessary for identifying the offense charged.

Sec. 15. Place where action is to be instituted. (a) Subject to existing laws, in all criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the offense was committed or any of the essential ingredients thereof took place.

As enunciated in People v. Hon. Manzanilla, jurisdiction or venue is determined by the allegations in the information.

It was specifically alleged in the information 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.

2. YES. The check in question is covered by BP blg. 22.

It is 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 (Phil. British Assurance Co., Inc. v. IAC, 150 SCRA 520 [1987]).

It will be noted that the law does not distinguish the currency involved in the case as enunciated in its July 5, 1988 order:

"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.

Also, it is well established that courts may avail themselves of the actual proceedings of the legislative body to assist in determining the construction of a statute of doubtful meaning (Palanca v. City of Manila, 41 Phil. 125 [1920]). Thus, where there is doubts as to what a provision of a statute means, the meaning put to the provision during the legislative deliberation or discussion on the bill may be adopted (Arenas v. City of San Carlos.

Thus, the legislative intent of the lawmakers of BP blg. 22 was considered. Based on the record, it was expressed that "The bill refers to any check. . .in whatever currency. This would not even be limited to U.S. dollar checks. The check may be in French francs or Japanese yen or deutschunorhs. (sic.) If drawn, then this bill will apply.

It was also expressly stated that it includes U.S. dollar checks."

Considering the wording of BP 22 and its lawmakers intent, the argument of petitioner that the check in question, being drawn against the dollar account of the petitioner in a foreign bank, is not covered by BP blg. 22 is UNTENABLE.

Petition DISMISSED for LACK OF MERIT.