NAGA CITY, – The city prosecutor’s office dismissed the estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa (BP No. 22) filed against a former councilor of La Trinidad, Benguet and his cohort for insufficiency of evidence against them.
In a 3-page resolution penned by Prosecutor Leannnierose R. Fenis-Sucarte and approved by City Prosecutor Ruvi Jean Villagomez Carino, the violation of BP 22 filed against former La Trinidad councilor Ryan Von Tauli was ordered dismissed for lack of jurisdiction while the violation of BP 22 charges filed against his cohort Mary Flor Medina Manaog was also ordered dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
Further, the complaint for estafa against both Tauli and Manaog was also dismissed for insufficiency of evidence and for lack of jurisdiction.
The resolution stated it is well settled that violation of BP 22 cases is categorized as transitory or continuing crimes, which means that the acts occur in one municipality or territory, while some occur in another.
The resolution added that 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 case excludes the other.
On the other hand, 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 applying the said principles, a criminal case for violation of BP 22 may be filed in any of the places where any of its elements occurred, thus, in particularly, the place where the check was drawn, issued, delivered or dishonoured.
In the said case, the resolution cited that it was clear that the drawee bank was Banco de Oro Baguio Legarda but there is no allegation or proof based on the complaint affidavit and supporting documents with respect to the place of issuance and delivery of the said check, neither was there any allegation and proof as to the place of dishonour,which took place in Naga City, thus, the office has no legal authority to indict the respondents for the offense complained of.
On the part of Manaog, while it appears from the checks issued that the drawee bank is BCDO Elias Angeles Naga City, there is no proof that she had been notified of the dishonouring of the said checks, and in the absence of proof of actual receipt of the demand letter, the charge of BP 22 against her is unavailing.
With respect to the complaint of estafa, the prosecutor found no allegation and proof that the transaction took place in Naga City and there is likewise no evidence submitted that Tauli and Manaog received from the complainant P4.7 million as investment in the discounting of casino. By HENT
