Yalong vs. People of the Philippines

A petition for review is the improper mode of appeal from a Regional Trial Court resolution dismissing a petition for certiorari; the correct remedy is a notice of appeal under Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, because certiorari is an original action and the RTC thus exercises original jurisdiction.

Respondent Lucila C. Ylagan loaned Fely Y. Yalong ₱450,000.00, receiving a postdated check that was later dishonored for "Account Closed." Ylagan filed a B.P. 22 complaint in the MTCC Batangas City. Yalong defended that the loan was paid and the check belonged to her husband. The MTCC convicted Yalong, promulgating the decision in absentia after her unjustified absence. Yalong subsequently lost her statutory remedies by failing to appear, surrender, or seek leave of court, prompting her to file a petition for certiorari with the RTC.

• The Loan and the Check: On April 2, 2002, Yalong borrowed ₱450,000.00 from Ylagan, issuing a postdated Export and Industry Bank Check dated May 3, 2002.
• Dishonor and Demand: Upon presentment on August 27, 2002, the check was dishonored for "Account Closed." Verbal and written demands for payment went unheeded, leading Ylagan to file a B.P. 22 case.
• Yalong's Defense: Yalong claimed full payment of the loan without securing a receipt and asserted the checking account belonged to her husband, though she admitted knowledge of insufficient funds when handing the pre-signed check.
• MTCC Conviction and Promulgation: The MTCC convicted Yalong, finding all elements of B.P. 22 established and rejecting her defense. The judgment was promulgated in absentia on October 6, 2006, due to Yalong's unjustified absence.
• Loss of Remedies: Yalong failed to appear at promulgation, did not surrender within 15 days, and did not file a motion for leave of court, resulting in the loss of her ordinary remedies. Her subsequent petition for certiorari with the RTC was dismissed, prompting the erroneous appeal to the CA.

• Propriety of Petition for Review: Petitioner contended that the petition for review filed with the CA was the proper mode of appeal from the RTC resolution.
• Substantial Compliance: Petitioner argued that the petition for review should be treated as a notice of appeal since its contents already included the required contents of the latter.

• Improper Mode of Appeal: Respondent maintained that the RTC resolution was issued in the exercise of original jurisdiction, requiring a notice of appeal rather than a petition for review.
• Finality of Judgment: Respondent argued that the failure to file the correct mode of appeal within the reglementary period rendered the RTC resolution final and executory.

• Proper Mode of Appeal: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for review on the ground of improper appeal from an RTC resolution issued in the exercise of original jurisdiction.
• Territorial Jurisdiction: Whether the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Batangas City had territorial jurisdiction over the B.P. 22 case.

• Proper Mode of Appeal: The dismissal was proper. A petition for certiorari is an original action; consequently, the RTC resolution dismissing it was issued in the exercise of original jurisdiction. Under Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, appeals from RTC decisions in the exercise of original jurisdiction must be taken by notice of appeal. A petition for review is distinct and applicable only when the RTC exercises appellate jurisdiction. The two modes cannot be loosely interchanged, and filing the wrong mode is fatal, rendering the assailed judgment final and executory.
• Territorial Jurisdiction: The MTCC correctly exercised territorial jurisdiction. Violations of B.P. 22 are transitory or continuing crimes, allowing the case to be filed in any municipality where any element of the offense occurred. Because the check was presented for deposit and encashment in Batangas City where the dishonor was learned, the MTCC properly took cognizance of the case.

• Modes of Appeal from the RTC — Appeals to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by notice of appeal, while appeals from the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be taken by petition for review. These modes are distinct and cannot be interchanged absent compelling reasons.
• Perfection of Appeal — The perfection of an appeal within the prescribed period and manner is jurisdictional; non-compliance renders the judgment final and executory.
• Transitory/Continuing Crimes — 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. For B.P. 22 violations, jurisdiction lies in any place where the check is drawn, issued, delivered, or dishonored.

• "While the Rules of Court do not specifically state that the inappropriate filing of a petition for review instead of a required notice of appeal is dismissible... Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the Rules nonetheless provides that appeals to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the latter court."
• "It is fundamental that a petition for certiorari is an original action and, as such, it cannot be gainsaid that the RTC took cognizance of and resolved the aforesaid petition in the exercise of its original jurisdiction."

• Ruiz v. People, G.R. No. 160893, November 18, 2005, 475 SCRA 476 — Followed. Cited for the proposition that B.P. 22 is broad enough to cover the issuance of a check by one who has no account or whose account is closed.
• Rigor v. People, G.R. No. 144887, November 17, 2004, 442 SCRA 450 — Followed. Cited for the principle that B.P. 22 violations are transitory crimes, justifying territorial jurisdiction where any essential act occurred, including presentment and dishonor.
• China Banking Corporation v. Cebu Printing and Packaging Corporation, G.R. No. 172880, August 11, 2010, 628 SCRA 154 — Followed. Cited to establish that a petition for certiorari is an original and independent action.
• Heirs of Gaudiano v. Benemerito, G.R. No. 174247, February 21, 2007, 516 SCRA 416 — Followed. Cited for the rule that perfection of an appeal within the period and manner prescribed by law is jurisdictional and non-compliance is fatal.

• Section 2(a), Rule 41, Rules of Court — Dictates that ordinary appeals to the CA from RTC decisions in the exercise of original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal. Applied to hold that Yalong's petition for review was an improper mode of appeal.
• Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 — The penal statute penalizing the issuance of worthless checks. Applied as the substantive basis for the criminal charge and the determination of territorial jurisdiction over its violation.

Carpio, A.T. (Chairperson), Peralta, D.M., Del Castillo, M.C., Perez, J.P.