You are on page 1of 3

RULE 110 – SECTION 12 – Name of the offended party

[G.R. No. L-8596. May 18, 1956.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JULIANA UBA and CALIXTA UBA
FACTS:

On August 1, 1952, Demetria Somod-ong filed a complaint in the justice of the
peace court of Oroquieta, Misamis Occidental, charging above-named Juliana
and Calixta Uba with having uttered in public against complainant certain
defamatory words and expressions.
The complaint was supported by the affidavits of Pastora Somod-ong, Marciano
Calibog and Anacoreta Rocaldo. The court found the existence of probable
cause and forwarded the case to the Court of First Instance, where the
provincial fiscal filed the information charging the accused Juliana and
Calixta Uba of serious oral defamation. However, instead of mentioning the
complainant Demetria Somod-ong as the offended party, the information
named Pastora Somod-ong as the person offended.
When the case came for trial both Demetria and Pastora testified for the
prosecution. Demetria is the daughter of Pastora and when the latter testified
she declared that it was her daughter Demetria who was insulted by the
accused. When Demetria testified she declared the accused insulted her
corroborating her mother’s testimony. Two other witnesses testified that the
accused insulted Demetria Somod-ong calling her lascivious and a prostitute.
When the prosecution had rested, counsel for the accused promptly moved for
the dismissal of the case on the ground that all the defamatory
statements supposed to have been uttered by the accused were
against Demetria, not against the offended party, Pastora.
The judge sustained the motion to dismiss and entered decision acquitting
the accused of the charge. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: WON the court a quo erred in dismissing the case
HELD: NO.

The Solicitor General contends in this appeal that the trial court should have
ordered the fiscal to amend the information by changing the name of the
offended party so as to make it conform with the evidence. It is claimed that the
change would merely be one of form, permitted by Section 13 of Rule 106,
which provides:
“SEC. 13. Amendment. — The information or complaint may be amended,
in substance or form, without leave of court, at any time before
the Defendant pleads; and thereafter and during the trial as to all matters
of form, by leave and at the discretion of the court, when the same can be
done without prejudice to the rights of the Defendant.

If it appears at any time before judgment that mistake has been made in
charging the proper offense, the court may dismiss the original complaint or
information and order the filing of a new one charging the proper offense,
provided the Defendant would not be place thereby in double jeopardy, and
may also require the witnesses to give bail for their appearance at the trial.”
While it is probably true that the fiscal or his clerk made a clerical error in
putting in the information the name of Pastora Somod-ong instead of that of
Demetria Somod-ong, as the offended party, the mistake thus committed
was on a very material matter in the case, such that it necessarily
affected the identification of the act charged.

The act of insulting X is distinct from a similar act of insult against Y, even if the
insult is preferred by the same person, in the same language and at about the
same time. Note that the pleading that give the court jurisdiction to try
the offense is not the complaint of the offended party, but the
information by the fiscal, because the charge is the utterance of insulting or
defamatory language, not the imputation of an offense which can be prosecuted
only at the instance of the offended party. (People vs. Marquez, 68 Phil., 521;
Blanco vs. People, 70 Phil., 735.)

The case of Lahoylahoy, 38 Phil., 330, appears to us to be in point and decisive
of the case. The reasons for the decision in that case were, first, because, to
convict a person of robbing X when the person robbed is Y is violative
of the principles of pleading and, second, because then the plea of
double jeopardy would be of no avail to an accused. To this same effect is
our decision in People vs. Balboa, 90 Phil., 5.
 We, therefore, find that the court a quo did not err in dismissing the
case for variance between the allegations of the information and the
proof. But the evidence showed that the accused were guilty of
another act, that of insulting Demetria Somod-ong. The Court should
have, therefore, ordered the fiscal to file another information with
Demetria Somod-ong as the offended party and hold the accused in
custody to answer the new charge.

The order of dismissal is hereby affirmed, but the provincial fiscal of Misamis
Occidental is hereby ordered to file a new information charging the same
accused with the offense of serious oral defamation against Demetria Somodong. Judgment modified.

SP No. The information alleged: o  That on or about the 12th day of July. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES FACTS:  On November 11. 22707 was docketed as CA-G. 1995. September 17. 22707 for lack of jurisdiction. he filed a Motion to Quash. 22707. after the filing of the Information before the Lingayen court. did then and there.R. the issue in these consolidated cases is whether or not the Dagupan and Lingayen trial courts have jurisdiction over the respective information for Falsification of Private Documents. Philippines. arguing that the MTC had no jurisdiction over the offense charged. 1994 . as supporting documents to his Bill of Cost in Civil Case No. they were not. 1996 . 1995. 10024 was docketed as CA-G.another Information for Falsification of Private Document was filed against the accused-appellant before the Municipal Trial Court of Lingayen. in the City of Dagupan. On August 7. to his own knowledge. WON the respective informations in Lingayen as well as in Dagupan. HELD:  On the issue of jurisdiction. 1995 . 22707). SORIANO. the accused-appellant filed a Motion to Quash x x x.  Twice rebuffed by two different trial courts. willfully. . the adverse party… represented by EVELYN C. petitioner appealed the said cases to the Court of Appeals. 10024). dismissing the Petition for Certiorari of the accused-appellant for lack of merit. thereby making untruthful statements in a narration of fact. we find enlightening the findings of the Court of Appeals:  Stripped to the core. with intent to cause damage to the heirs of Roman Soriano of Lingayen.R. Pangasinan (Criminal Case No. and thereafter offered the same to the Regional Trial Court.RULE 110 – Section 15 – Place where action is to be instituted [G. The court a quo denied the Motion to Quash. Pangasinan. 1994. BRAULIO ABALOS. 42482. 1995 and November 20. The appeal in Criminal Case No. SORIANO. WON the filing of separate complaints supported by the identical affidavits and annexes to the informations filed in two courts constitutes forum shopping. BRAULIO ABALOS vs. an Information for Falsification of Private Documents was filed against the accused appellant Braulio Abalos before the Municipal Trial Court of Dagupan City (Criminal Case No. Private complainants Motion for Reconsideration was denied on November 20.R. SP No. The accused-appellant went on Certiorari to the RTC of Lingayen. 2002]  June 5. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court… ENGR. December 12. 1995 . caused the production of and the filling in of entries on Cash Receipts Nos.  January 3. 136994. giving the impression to the court that the receipts were authentic when in fact. NO. sustained damages. Branch 37 of Lingayen. the accusedappellant entered a plea of not guilty.  Petitioners filed MR > DENIED. 39414 and 41775 of the Pangasinan Photostat. 15958. 1994. 1996.private complainant filed a Petition for Certiorari with the RTC of Dagupan City.  October 20. unlawfully and criminally. Pangasinan. among them is EVELYN C. ISSUE: WON MTCC-Dagupan and MTC-Lingayen have jurisdiction over the crimes allegedly committed by petitioner. MTCC. Pangasinan which rendered a Decision on October 28. CA consolidated the two appeals. that as a consequence thereof. complainant herein. 1995 Orders of the MTC of Dagupan City in Criminal Case No.  On the other hand.MTC of Dagupan City ordered the quashal of Criminal Case No. RTC issued the Order now on appeal. were dismissible for multiplicity of offenses merged in one information. 43237. while that in Criminal Case No.during his arraignment before the Dagupan MTC.  Court of Appeals > promulgated the decision DISMISSING the appeals for lack of merit. reversing and setting aside the October 20. 39185.

petitioner alleged lack of jurisdiction. As for the Lingayen case. it is clear that both the Dagupan and Lingayen courts may exercise jurisdiction over the respective criminal cases filed before it. 18 SCRA 616. This question finds its answer in the case of Alfelor.  On the other hand. double jeopardy. 70 SCRA 480. The other two counts. as charged. Pagdayuman. and 41775. 15958) is of no moment. three. considering that five separate offenses of falsification were involved. He only raised the issue of multifariousness of offenses alleged in his petition before this Court. It is obvious the cases had to be filed where the offenses had been committed. 265). it appears that the subject invoices were issued by the Xerox Copying Machine of Lingayen.  The Rules of Court. vs. and his objection on this point can no longer be raised on appeal. This suffices to give said court jurisdiction over the crime of falsification as charged. Section 13. when the cash receipts were produced repetitively in Dagupan and Lingayen. in his Motion to Quash filed in Lingayen. It was erroneous for petitioner to argue that only one offense was committed. that Section 13. A detailed disquisition could throw but little additional light on the issue of jurisdiction. Petitioner was charged with five counts of falsification. was committed within the municipality of Lingayen.  For jurisdiction to be acquired by a court in a criminal case. in Lingayen as well as in Dagupan. were allegedly committed in Lingayen. The Dagupan court could not validly take cognizance of offenses committed in Lingayen. there can be no forum-shopping.  The real problem. respectively. 5 Phil. City Judge. Branch 7. 39414. is why the first three offenses were lumped in a single information filed in Dagupan. citing the case of Lopez vs. petitioner failed to raise this issue during arraignment. lack of jurisdiction. The offenses of falsification took place much earlier. separately. in connection with Civil Case No. his objection is belated. and obviously to no avail. Thus. Petitioners argument that the crime of falsification x x x arose ONLY when the intent to cause damage became evident. Sr. Likewise. 39185. petitioner now claims. By this time. with ostensible merit.S. that is. concerning Cash Receipts Nos. Pangasinan. There are as many acts of falsification as there are documents falsified. In his Motion to Quash filed in Dagupan City. why were two offenses joined in a single information filed in Lingayen? Thus. In the Dagupan case involving the cash receipts issued by the Pangasinan Photostat of Dagupan City. The fact that the falsified receipts and invoices were allegedly used at the same time in one court proceedings (at the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen. xxx     Coming now to the cases at bench (sic). under the provisions of Section 86 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. The first . were allegedly committed in Dagupan. 1070 and 1071. that the act of falsification is committed by the signing of the document and the coetaneous intent to cause damage and whether the falsified private document was thereafter put or not put to the illegal use for which it was intended is in no wise a material or essential element of the crime of falsification of a private document. involving Invoices Nos. the Information alleges that the offense was committed in Dagupan City. petitioner alleged forum-shopping. However. Rule 110 of the Rules of Court was violated. however. where the Supreme Court stated: xxx  It is settled law in criminal actions that the place where the criminal offense was committed not only determines the venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction (U. Again. indeed frowns upon multiple offenses being charged in a single information.  Likewise. Intia. when the receipts and invoices were submitted in court as proof of the Bill of Costs proves futile in light of the pronouncement in Lopez (supra). municipal courts have original jurisdiction only over criminal offenses committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction. v. Nor could the Lingayen court legally entertain charges for acts done in Dagupan. either in Dagupan or in Lingayen. particularly Rule 110. and that the facts do not constitute an offense. it suffices for jurisdiction to vest that the Information alleges that the crime of falsification. the offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients should have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. His failure to do so amounts to a waiver.