Facts

• On April 2, 2002 Fely Y. Yalong borrowed ₱450,000.00 from Lucila C. Ylagan under a verbal agreement to repay in cash, and issued Export and Industry Bank Check No. 0002578833, postdated May 3, 2002, for the same amount.
• The check was drawn, issued and delivered in Manila. That is the whole of the accused's venue argument.
• On August 27, 2002 Ylagan presented it for deposit and encashment at LBC Bank in Batangas City; the drawee, Export and Industry Bank, Juan Luna Branch, dishonoured it — "Account Closed."
• After unheeded demands Ylagan filed a criminal complaint, and an Information for B.P. Blg. 22 was filed in the MTCC of Batangas City, Branch 1 (Crim. Case No. 45414). Yalong pleaded not guilty and trial proceeded.
• On August 24, 2006 the MTCC convicted her — one year's imprisonment, ₱450,000.00 with 12% interest from October 10, 2002, plus ₱25,000.00 attorney's fees — promulgated in absentia because she failed to appear.
• On January 19, 2007 the MTCC denied due course to her Notice of Appeal: she had failed to appear at promulgation, failed to surrender within fifteen days, and remained at large. Her Petition for Relief was dismissed on July 25, 2007 for the same reason.
• On April 2, 2008 the RTC of Batangas City, Branch 7 denied her Rule 65 certiorari, sustaining the in absentia promulgation.
• On August 1, 2008 the CA dismissed her Petition for Review as the wrong mode — the RTC had acted in its original jurisdiction, so the remedy was an ordinary appeal. Reconsideration was denied March 10, 2009.
• On August 28, 2013 the Second Division denied her Rule 45 petition.

Issue

Ruling

"WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Accordingly, the Resolutions dated August 1, 2008 and March 10, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 104075 are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."

Ratio

• The appeal was dead before the venue question arose. "[T]he rules on appeal must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable to forestall or avoid unreasonable delays in the administration of justice … the perfection of an appeal within the period and in the manner prescribed by law is jurisdictional and non-compliance with such requirements is considered fatal and has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory."
• The Court then decided venue as an alternative ground. "It is well-settled that violation of BP 22 cases is categorized as transitory or continuing crimes, which means that the acts material and essential thereto occur in one municipality or territory, while some occur in another. Accordingly, 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. Stated differently, 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."
• And it enumerated the four venues: "Applying these principles, a criminal case for violation of BP 22 may be filed in any of the places where any of its elements occurred – in particular, the place where the check is drawn, issued, delivered, or dishonored."
• Applied, the decisive element was local. The drawing, issuance and delivery were in Manila, but the check was deposited at LBC Bank in Batangas City and it was there that the dishonour — a material and essential element — occurred, vesting jurisdiction in the MTCC of Batangas City.

Doctrine

• Violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is a continuing or transitory crime; under Section 15(a), Rule 110 jurisdiction lies wherever any essential ingredient occurred — where the check was:
  1. Drawn.
  2. Issued.
  3. Delivered.
  4. Presented for deposit and dishonoured.
• The jurisdictional boundary of appeal modes: RTC judgments in its original jurisdiction are appealed by Notice of Appeal under Rule 41; those in its appellate jurisdiction by Petition for Review under Rule 42 — and the two are jurisdictional and not interchangeable.

• The payee's residence is not, by itself, a venue — it qualifies only if one of the four acts actually occurred there.
• And concurrency ends with the first filing: where different elements occurred in different places, "the first court taking cognizance of the same excludes the other." Read against Union Bank v. People, which is the same analysis reaching the opposite structure: perjury has all its elements at one point and so is not transitory, while B.P. 22 spreads its elements across places and so is. In both, the test is identical — locate the essential ingredients — and it is the offence, not the parties' convenience, that decides.
• Note also the procedural lesson that actually disposed of this case: a defendant who absents herself from promulgation and stays at large loses her appellate remedies, and no venue argument survives that.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

Facts

• April 2, 2002: Petitioner Fely Y. Yalong borrowed the amount of ₱450,000.00 from respondent Lucila C. Ylagan under a verbal agreement that the loan would be paid back in cash. As payment, Yalong issued and handed to Ylagan a postdated check (Export and Industry Bank Check No. 0002578833) dated May 3, 2002, in the same amount of ₱450,000.00.
• May 3, 2002: The postdated check became due and operable.
• August 27, 2002: Ylagan presented the subject check for deposit and encashment at LBC Bank in Batangas City, but the check was dishonored and returned by the drawee bank (Export and Industry Bank, Juan Luna Branch) with the stamp "Account Closed."
• Subsequent Date (Exact Date NOT IN RECORD): Following verbal and written demands that went unheeded, Ylagan filed a criminal complaint against Yalong.
• Subsequent Date (Exact Date NOT IN RECORD): An Information charging Yalong with violation of BP 22 was filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Batangas City, Branch 1, docketed as Criminal Case No. 45414.
• Subsequent Date (Exact Date NOT IN RECORD): Upon arraignment, Yalong entered a plea of "not guilty." Pre-trial and trial on the merits ensued.
• August 24, 2006: The MTCC rendered its Judgment finding Yalong guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating BP 22, sentencing her to one year of imprisonment, and ordering her to pay Ylagan ₱450,000.00 with 12% legal interest per annum from October 10, 2002, plus ₱25,000.00 as attorney's fees and costs of suit. The decision was promulgated in absentia due to Yalong's unjustified absence.
• October 15, 2006: Yalong filed a "Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration and Recall the Warrant of Arrest," which the MTCC treated as an original motion for reconsideration.
• December 5, 2006: The MTCC issued an Order denying the motion for reconsideration.
• January 2, 2007: Yalong filed a Notice of Appeal.
• January 19, 2007: The MTCC issued an Order denying due course to the Notice of Appeal on the ground that Yalong had lost her right to appeal under the law due to her failure to appear at the scheduled promulgation of judgment, her failure to surrender within 15 days, and her status of remaining at large.
• Subsequent Date (Exact Date NOT IN RECORD): Yalong filed a "Petition for Relief from Order and Denial of Appeal" before the MTCC.
• July 25, 2007: The MTCC issued an Order dismissing the Petition for Relief on the ground that Yalong remained a fugitive from justice and had lost her right to avail of remedies.
• Subsequent Date (Exact Date NOT IN RECORD): Yalong filed a motion for reconsideration.
• October 25, 2007: The MTCC issued an Order denying the motion for reconsideration.
• Subsequent Date (Exact Date NOT IN RECORD): Yalong filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with a Petition for Bail before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City, Branch 7, docketed as Civil Case No. 8278, assailing the MTCC's orders.
• April 2, 2008: The RTC rendered a Resolution denying the certiorari petition, declaring the promulgation of the MTCC Decision in absentia valid, and ruling that Yalong lost her remedies under the law by remaining at large.
• April 30, 2008: Yalong filed a motion for reconsideration of the RTC's Resolution.
• May 27, 2008: The RTC issued an Order denying the motion for reconsideration.
• June 26, 2008: Yalong filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 104075.
• August 1, 2008: The CA issued a Resolution dismissing the Petition for Review on the ground that it was an improper mode of appeal, as the RTC's Resolution was rendered in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, which must be appealed via an ordinary appeal (Notice of Appeal) under Rule 41§.
• November 20, 2008: Yalong filed a motion for reconsideration of the CA's dismissal.
• March 10, 2009: The CA issued a Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration.
• Subsequent Date (Exact Date NOT IN RECORD): Yalong filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.
• August 28, 2013: The Supreme Court Second Division promulgated its Decision denying Yalong's petition.

Arguments of the Parties

• Improper Territorial Venue / Lack of Jurisdiction: The petitioner argued that the MTCC of Batangas City had no jurisdiction over the offense because the check was drawn, issued, and delivered to the complainant in Manila, meaning all essential elements and the execution of the transaction took place outside the territorial boundaries of Batangas City.
• Substance Over Form in Modes of Appeal: She argued that her Petition for Review filed before the Court of Appeals should have been treated as a Notice of Appeal in the interest of substantial justice, as the contents of her petition substantively satisfied the requirements of a notice of appeal and procedural rules must be liberally construed.

• Territorial Jurisdiction Properly Vested via Dishonor: The respondents argued that Batangas City was a proper venue§ for the criminal action because violations of BP 22 are continuing or transitory offenses. While drawing, issuance, and delivery occurred in Manila, the check was presented for deposit and encashment at LBC Bank in Batangas City, and it was there that the check was subsequently dishonored—constituting a material and essential element of the offense within Batangas City.
• Fatal Procedural Infraction: They contended that a petition for review under Rule 42 is a completely distinct procedure from an ordinary appeal under Rule 41§. Since the RTC dismissed Yalong's petition for certiorari in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, a Notice of Appeal was a mandatory requirement. Her failure to file a Notice of Appeal rendered the RTC's judgment final and executory.

• Factual Occurrence of Issuance and Deposit: Both parties agreed that the check was physically drawn, issued, and delivered by Yalong to Ylagan in the City of Manila, and that the check was subsequently presented for deposit and encashment by Ylagan at LBC Bank in Batangas City.

Issue

1. Whether the Court of Appeals properly dismissed the petitioner's Petition for Review under Rule 42 on the ground that it was an improper mode of appeal to challenge an RTC resolution dismissing an original petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
2. Whether a petition for review under Rule 42 can be liberally treated as a Notice of Appeal under Rule 41§ when they are substantively similar in content.

Ruling

• MAIN ISSUE: YES. The MTCC of Batangas City has proper territorial jurisdiction over the case. Since violation of BP 22 is a transitory or continuing crime, the place where the check is presented for deposit and dishonored constitutes a valid venue for the criminal action under the Rules of Court.
• SECONDARY ISSUES:
  1. YES. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. Certiorari before the RTC is an original action, and any decision resolving it is rendered in the exercise of the RTC's original jurisdiction. Thus, the proper mode of appeal is an ordinary appeal via a Notice of Appeal under Rule 41§, Section 2(a), not a petition for review under Rule 42.
  2. NO. A petition for review cannot be loosely interchanged with a notice of appeal, as they govern completely distinct jurisdictional paths. A notice of appeal is filed with the RTC to appeal decisions made in its original jurisdiction, while a petition for review is filed with the CA to appeal RTC decisions made in its appellate jurisdiction.

"WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Accordingly, the Resolutions dated August 1, 2008 and March 10, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 104075 are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."

Ratio

1. Strict Jurisdictional Requirements of Appeal Modes: The Court held that the Court of Appeals was procedurally correct in dismissing Yalong's Petition for Review. Under Section 2(a) of Rule 41§ of the Rules of Court, decisions rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction must be appealed to the CA by filing a Notice of Appeal with the RTC itself, and serving a copy on the adverse party. A petition for certiorari filed with the RTC is an original and independent action, meaning the RTC's resolution dismissing it was made in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. Consequently, Yalong's filing of a petition for review under Rule 42 (which applies only to decisions rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction) was the wrong remedy. The Court emphasized that:

   "the rules on appeal must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable to forestall or avoid unreasonable delays in the administration of justice, to ensure an orderly discharge of judicial business, and to put an end to controversies... the perfection of an appeal within the period and in the manner prescribed by law is jurisdictional and non-compliance with such requirements is considered fatal and has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory."

2. Territorial Jurisdiction over continuing BP 22 violations: The Court laid down the alternative ground that even if procedural lapses were brushed aside, the petition must still fail because the MTCC of Batangas City properly possessed territorial jurisdiction over the offense. Applying Section 15(a) [formerly Section 14(a)] of Rule 110§ of the Rules of Court, the Court declared that:

   "It is well-settled that violation of BP 22 cases is categorized as transitory or continuing crimes, which means that the acts material and essential thereto occur in one municipality or territory, while some occur in another. Accordingly, 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. Stated differently, 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."

3. The Places of Proper Venue for BP 22: The Court explicitly enumerated the four alternative venues where a violation of BP 22 may be filed based on the physical elements of the crime:

   "Applying these principles, a criminal case for violation of BP 22 may be filed in any of the places where any of its elements occurred – in particular, the place where the check is drawn, issued, delivered, or dishonored."

   In this case, while the drawing, issuance, and delivery of the check occurred in Manila, the complainant presented the check for deposit and encashment at LBC Bank in Batangas City. It was there that she learned of its dishonor. Consequently, the dishonor of the check—which is a material and essential element of the crime—occurred in Batangas City, thereby vesting valid territorial jurisdiction in the MTCC of Batangas City.

Doctrine

• The BP 22 Transitory Venue Rule: The offense of violating BP 22 is a continuing or transitory crime. Under Section 15(a), Rule 110§, territorial jurisdiction is properly laid in any municipality or province where any of the essential ingredients of the offense occurred. Specifically, it can be filed where the check is: (1) drawn, (2) issued, (3) delivered, or (4) presented for deposit/encashment and subsequently dishonored.
• The Jurisdictional Boundary of Appeals: Appeals from decisions of the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction must be taken by filing a Notice of Appeal under Rule 41§. Appeals from decisions of the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction must be taken by filing a Petition for Review under Rule 42. These modes are jurisdictional and cannot be interchanged.

• Unavailability of the Domicile of Payee as a Venue: The domicile or residence of the payee is not by itself a valid venue for a BP 22 case unless one of the four essential acts (drawing, issuance, delivery, or deposit/dishonor) actually occurred in that specific residence.
• The Exclusionary Principle of Concurrent Jurisdiction: When multiple courts have concurrent territorial jurisdiction over a transitory offense because different elements occurred in different places, the first court that lawfully takes cognizance of the case excludes all other courts.

Separate Opinions

• CONCURRING OPINION OF JUSTICE PERALTA (Designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1525 dated August 22, 2013): NOT IN RECORD. No separate concurring or dissenting opinions were filed in this case. The Decision of the Court’s Second Division was unanimous, with Carpio, J. (Chairperson), Del Castillo, J., and Perez, J. concurring.