Postdating a check speed dating open ended questions

Posted by / 03-Apr-2015 17:22

Verily, no proof has been offered that the checks were issued, delivered, dishonored or knowledge of insufficiency of funds occurred in Manila, which are essential elements necessary for the Manila Court to acquire jurisdiction over the offense. We note however that knowledge by the maker or drawer of the fact that he has no sufficient funds to cover the check or of having sufficient funds is simultaneous to the issuance of the instrument. The lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal.

(d) By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation the offender knowing that at the time he had no funds in the bank, or the funds deposited by him were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check without informing the payee of such circumstances." The scope of paragraph 2 (d), however, was deemed to exclude checks issued in payment of pre-existing obligations. As such, there would be no basis in upholding the jurisdiction of the trial court over the offense. 22, respondent relies on the doctrine of jurisdiction by estoppel. It is to be regretted, however, that the holding in said case had been applied to situations which were obviously not contemplated therein.

There is no scintilla of evidence to show that jurisdiction over the violation of B. Upon the contention of respondent that knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of the check of the insufficiency of his funds is by itself a continuing eventuality whether the accused be within one territory or another, the same is still without merit. We again find no iota of proof on the records that at the time of issue, petitioner or complainant was in Manila. This doctrine has been qualified by recent pronouncements which stemmed principally from the ruling in the cited case of Sibonghanoy.

important; } .ezoic-wrapper-column-1 * { max-width: 352px; } .ezoic-wrapper-column-2 * { max-width: 352px; } .ezoic-wrapper-content * { max-width: 743px; } Widget Wrap { display: table !

and have to be established with satisfactory proof to warrant conviction. In the case at bar, the complaint for estafa and the various charges under B. Petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the lower court stating that none of the essential elements constitutive of violation of B. She maintains that the evidence presented established that (a) complainant was a resident of Makati; (b) petitioner was a resident of Caloocan City; (c) the place of business of the alleged partnership was located in Malabon; (d) the drawee bank was located in Malabon; and, (e) the checks were all deposited for collection in Makati. For violation of the Bouncing Checks Law, on the other hand, the elements of deceit and damage are neither essential nor required. They questioned the jurisdiction of the trial court in a memorandum before the lower court.

However, if the evidence adduced during the trial show that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction. 22 were jointly tried before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. 22 was shown to have been committed in the City of Manila. Respondent People of the Philippines through the Solicitor General on the one hand argues that even if there is no showing of any evidence that the essential ingredients took place or the offense was committed in Manila, what is critical is the fact that the court acquired jurisdiction over the estafa case because the same is the principal or main case and that the cases for violations of Bouncing Checks Law are merely incidental to the estafa case. The crimes of estafa and violation of the Bouncing Checks Law are two (2) different offenses having different elements and, necessarily, for a court to acquire jurisdiction each of the essential ingredients of each crime has to be satisfied. Hence, it is incorrect for respondent People to conclude that inasmuch as the Regional Trial Court of Manila acquired jurisdiction over the estafa case then it also acquired jurisdiction over the violations of B. As a matter of fact, as soon as the accused discovered the jurisdictional defect, she did not fail or neglect to file the appropriate motion to dismiss.

And once it is so shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case. 22 are (a) the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply to account or for value; (b) the maker, drawer or issuer knows at the time of issuance that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment; and, (c) the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment. The circumstances of the present case are very different from Tijam v. No judgment has yet been rendered by the trial court in this case.

For Violation of the Bouncing Checks Law, on the other hand, the elements of deceit and damage are not essential nor required. Malice and intent in issuing the worthless check are immaterial, the offense being malum prohibitum (Que vs. Taken altogether, petitioner concludes that the said evidence would only show that none of the essential elements of B. Hence, finding the pivotal element of laches to be absent, we hold that the ruling in Tijam v.

postdating a check-26postdating a check-75postdating a check-34

An essential element of that offense is knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of the check of the insufficiency of his funds (Cruz vs. Sibonghanoy does not control the present controversy.