Dear Atty. Joji,
My tenant issued 10 checks as payment for rent. Upon maturity, the checks were presented to the bank for payment. However, all the checks were dishonored on the ground that they were drawn against a closed account. My tenant failed to pay despite the issuance of a demand letter against him. Now, we plan to file a case for BP 22, or the Bouncing Checks Law, against him. May I know where we can file a complaint for an alleged violation of Batas Pambansa (BP) 22?
Albert
***
Dear Albert,
Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 22, also known as “An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds or Credit and For Other Purposes,” punishes the acts of making and issuing a check with knowledge by the issuer that at the time the check is issued, he does not have sufficient funds, and the failure to keep sufficient funds to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of 90 days from the date appearing on the check.
In the case of Morillo v. People, the Supreme Court ruled:
“It is well-settled that violations of BP [Blg.] 22 cases are categorized as transitory or continuing crimes, meaning that some acts material and essential thereto and requisite in their consummation occur in one municipality or territory, while some occur in another. In such cases, the court wherein any of the crime’s essential and material acts have been committed maintains jurisdiction to try the case; it being understood that the first court taking cognizance of the same excludes the other. Thus, a person charged with a continuing or transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or territory where the offense was in part committed.”
From the foregoing, it must be clear that a case for an alleged violation of BP 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law, may be filed before the court with territorial jurisdiction over any of the places where one of the elements of the crime occurred — in particular, the place where the check is drawn, issued, delivered, dishonored or deposited. Be that as it may, it must be noted that the first court taking cognizance of the same excludes the other. Hope this helps.
Atty. Joji Alonso