MANUEL LIM V.

CA 251 SCRA 408

FACTS:
Spouses Lim were charged with estafa and violations of BP22 for allegedly purchasing goods from Linton Commercial Corporation and issuing checks as payment thereof. The checks when presented to the bank were dishonored for insufficiency of funds or the payment for the checks has been stopped.

HELD:
It is settled that venue in criminal cases is a vital ingredient of jurisdiction. It shall be where the crime or offense was committed or any one of the essential ingredients thereof took place. In determining the proper venue for these cases, the following are material factsthe checks were issued at the place of business of Linton; they were delivered to Linton at the same place; they were dishonored in Kalookan City; petitioners had knowledge of the insufficiency of funds in their account. Under Section 191 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, issue means the first delivery of the instrument complete in its form to a person who takes it as holder. The term holder on the other hand refers to the payee or indorsee of a bill or note who is in possession of it or the bearer thereof. The important place to consider in the consummation of a negotiable instrument is the place of delivery. Delivery is the final act essential to its consummation as an obligation.

obligation, under the contract, was not payable during the Japaneseoccupation. Herein, the debtor undertook to pay six months after the war, peso for peso payment is indicated.Thu 25 Mar 2004 Nego-d: Ibasco vs. CA (GR 117488, 5September 1996) Posted by Berne Guerrero under(a) oas,digests No Comments Ibasco vs. CA GR 117488, 5 September 1996 Third Division, Davide Jr.(J) Facts: The Ibasco spouses requested credit accommodation fro the supplyof ingredients in the manufacture of animal feeds from the Trivinio spouses.Ibasco issued 3 checks for 3 deliveries of darak. The checks bounced and theIbasco spouses were notified of the dishonor. Ibasco instead offered aproperty in Daet. The property, being across the sea, the Trivinio spousesdid not inspect the property. For the failure of the Ibasco spouses to settletheir account, the Trivinio spouses filed criminal cases against the former forviolation of BP22. Issue: Whether the checks were for accommodation or guarantee to acquirethe benefits of the interpretation of Ministry Circular 4 of the Department of Justice in relation to BP 22. Held: Ministry Circular 4, issued 1 December 1981 by the Department of Justice, provides that where a check is issued as part of an arrangement toguarantee or secure the payment of the obligation, pre-existing or

not, thedrawer is not criminally liable for either estafa or violation of BP 22.Incidents however indicate that the checks were issued as payment and forvalue, and not for accommodation (i.e. pertaining to an arrangement made afavor to another, not upon a consideration received). as the checks failed tobear any statement for accommodation and for guarantee to showIbascos intent. ( It must be noted, however, that BP22 does not distinguishand applies even in cases where dishonored checks were issued as aguarantee or for deposit only. The erroneous interpretation of MinistryCircular 4 was rectified by the repealing Ministry Circular 12, issued on 8August 1984). Kauffman vs PNB, GR No. 16454 September 29, 1921, digested Posted by Pius Morados on January 4, 2012 (Negotiable Instruments) Facts: Plaintiff was entitled to the sum of P98,000 from the surplus earnings of Philippine Fiber & Produce Company (PFPC) which was placed to his credit on the companys books. The PFPC treasurer requested from PNB Manila that a telegraphic transfer of S45,000 should be made to the plaintiff in NY upon account of PFPC. The treasurer drew and delivered a check for the amount of P90,355 on the PNB which is the total costs o said transfer. As evidence, a document was made out and delivered to the PFPC treasurer which is referred to by the banks assistant cashier as its official receipt. On the same day the Philippine National Bank dispatched to its New York agency a cablegram to the following effect: Pay George A. Kauffman, New York, account Philippine Fiber Produce Co., $45,000. (Sgd.) PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Manila. Upon receipt of the telegraphic message, the banks representative advised the withholding of the money from Kauffman, in view of his reluctance to accept certain bills of the PFPC. The PNB agreed and sent to its NY agency another message to withhold the payment as suggested. Upon advice of the PFPC treasurer that S45,000 had been placed to his credit, he presented himself at the PNB NY and demanded the money but was refused due to the direction of the withholding of payment. Issue: WON plaintiff has a right over the money withhold. Held: No. Provisions of the NIL can come into operation there must be a document in existence of the character described in section 1 of the Law; and no rights properly speaking arise in respect to said instrument until it is delivered. The order transmitted by PNB to its NY branch, for the payment of a specified sum of money to the plaintiff was not made payable to order or to bearer, as required in subsection (d) of that Act; and inasmuch as it never left he possession of the bank, or its representative in NY, there was no delivery in the sense intended in section 16 of the same Law. In connection, it is unnecessary to point out that the official receipt delivered by the bank to the purchaser of the telegraphic order cannot itself be viewed in the light of a negotiable instrument, although it affords complete proof of the obligation actually assumed by the bank.

Green v. Lopez, 1917 Facts:

indorsed to the present holders, the plaintiffs. fide holders of the note by indorsement, because they had knowledge of the existence of certain equitable defenses which the makers were entitled to set up as against the payee of the noted, before they acquired it by indorsement from the payee. plaintiff on the other hand claims that he sent an employee to call upon the makers of the note to inquire whether it was a good note which would be paid at maturity, and that upon his return this employee stated that he had been informed by the makers of the note that it was a good note duly executed by them and that it would be paid when due. Issue: Whether the defendant could refuse payment on the note. Ruling: No. The court ruled that the allegations of the defendant were either wholly false or he failed to make himself understood resulting to the fact that no knowledge of the existence of equitable defenses was made known to the plaintiff, the purchaser of the note. There was nothing on the face of the note to put the purchasers on notice of the existence of such equitable defenses. It was entirely regular in form and came into their possession in the usual course of business. Under these circumstances the burden of proof was manifestly upon the maker of the note to establish the fact of knowledge of the equitable defenses before they could be permitted to rely upon such defenses as against the purchasers. Equitable defenses of this nature can in no event defeat the right of the holders of a negotiable note by indorsement and for valuable consideration, until and unless knowledge of the existence of such equitable defenses is brought home to them, or until it appears that the holders had such knowledge of the existence of defects in the instrument as to charge them with bad faith in acquiring it under all the attendant circumstances.