Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 603 views

    OCD. Brodeth, Et. Al Vs People

    Uploaded by

    June Karl Cepida
    The petitioners were charged with issuing two dishonored checks totaling P263,600 to Vill Integrated Transport Corporation. The Metropolitan Trial Court found the petitioners guilty, but they appealed. The Court of Appeals denied the appeal. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the Metropolitan Trial Court had jurisdiction, as it was not shown that the checks were issued, drawn, delivered, or deposited in Manila. The criminal cases were dismissed without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    OCD. Brodeth, Et. Al Vs People

    Uploaded by

    June Karl Cepida
    603 views1 page
    The petitioners were charged with issuing two dishonored checks totaling P263,600 to Vill Integrated Transport Corporation. The Metropolitan Trial Court found the petitioners guilty, but they appealed. The Court of Appeals denied the appeal. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the Metropolitan Trial Court had jurisdiction, as it was not shown that the checks were issued, drawn, delivered, or deposited in Manila. The criminal cases were dismissed without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    crimlaw case digest

    Original Title

    6. OCD. Brodeth, Et. Al vs People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners were charged with issuing two dishonored checks totaling P263,600 to Vill Integrated Transport Corporation. The Metropolitan Trial Court found the petitioners guilty, but they appealed. The Court of Appeals denied the appeal. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the Metropolitan Trial Court had jurisdiction, as it was not shown that the checks were issued, drawn, delivered, or deposited in Manila. The criminal cases were dismissed without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    603 views1 page

    OCD. Brodeth, Et. Al Vs People

    Uploaded by

    June Karl Cepida
    The petitioners were charged with issuing two dishonored checks totaling P263,600 to Vill Integrated Transport Corporation. The Metropolitan Trial Court found the petitioners guilty, but they appealed. The Court of Appeals denied the appeal. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the Metropolitan Trial Court had jurisdiction, as it was not shown that the checks were issued, drawn, delivered, or deposited in Manila. The criminal cases were dismissed without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    WOCD – Raffy Brodeth and Rolan B. Onal vs.

    People of the Philippines and Abraham Villegas

    G. R. No. 197849, November 29, 2017

    Facts:

    On August 16, 2001, there were two charges against the petitioners involving dishonoured
    checks for reason “Drawn against insufficient funds.” On August 31 and September 5 in 1999, the
    accused draw and issue 2 checks from Metrobank to Vill Integrated Transport Corporation, represented
    by Abraham Villegas, in the amount of P140, 000.00 and P123, 600.00 respectively. Despite receipt of
    notice of such dishonours, said accused, failed to pay VITC the amount of the check or make
    arrangements for full payment of the same within five banking days after receiving said notice.

    The petitioners argued they had arranged with a certain Cristina Villegas that the checks will be
    paid in cash but they have no receipts to prove their claims. The Metropolitan Trial Court found
    petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the offense charged on July 2, 2008, and on the 29th, the
    petitioners timely filed a notice of appeal, and the case was forwarded to the Regional Trial Court for
    further proceedings but the CA denied petitioners' appeal. It emphasized that the gravamen of the
    offense charges is the issuance of a bouncing check regardless of the purpose why it was issued. The fact
    that the checks were drawn by a corporation cannot exculpate petitions from the charge against them.
    Further, the CA maintained that the MeTC had jurisdiction to try the case because the complaint
    affidavit categorically stated that the checks were issued in Manila. The petitioners filed the instant
    petition after the CA promulgated the assailed resolution denying their motion for reconsideration.

    Issue:

    1. Whether or not the Metropolitan Trial Court have the jurisdiction over the case which affirmed
    reliance on hearsay evidence about where the check was issued.

    Ruling:

    The prosecution failed to prove that the subject checks were issued in Manila nor was any evidence
    shown that these were either drawn, delivered, or deposited in Manila, therefore, the court granted the
    petition. The May 17, 2011 Decision and the July 20, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
    CR No. 33104 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the
    Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 30, Manila. Criminal Case Nos. 371104-CR & 371105-CR are DISMISSED
    without prejudice.

    You might also like