Manuel S. Isip, vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 170298, June 26, 2007; per Chico-Nazario, J.

Facts

Petitioner and his wife were engage in jewelry business together with the complainant’s father. Needing a bigger capital to finance the growing operation, the Isips convinced complainant to be their capitalist, a proposition to which complainant acceded to. Thus, the operation went smoothly. The petitioner and his wife received several pieces of jewelries from complainant in several occassions with the condition that they are going to sell those jewelries and if they are not able to sell the same, they have to return it on or before the given dates. Upon due, the petitioner did not return the jewelries but issued personal checks instead, but all of them bounced for drawn against insufficient funds.

Petitioner was charged with Estafa before Branch XVII of the RTC of Cavite City while his wife, Marietta M. Isip, was indicted before the same court for seven counts of Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law. Both of them were likewise charged before the same court with five (5) counts of Estafa.

The Regional Trial Court finds the accused Dra. Marietta M. Isipguilty beyond reasonable doubt of a (sic) violation of B.P. 22 and of Estafa. Likewise, accused Manuel Isip is hereby found guilty of Estafa.

Issue

Whether or not the trial court had jurisdiction over the offense imputed to petitioner and for which he was convicted

Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that the venue was properly laid in the RTC of Cavite City. The complainant had sufficiently shown that the transaction covered by Criminal Case No. 136-84 took place in his ancestral home in Cavite City when he was on approved leave of absence from the Bureau of Customs. Since it has been shown that venue was properly laid, it is now petitioner’s task to prove otherwise, for it is his claim that the transaction involved was entered into in Manila. The age-old but familiar rule that he who alleges must prove his allegations applies. Wherefore, the decision and amended decision of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.