STO TOMAS V PANEDA

Petition: Petition for Certiorari prohibition and mandamus with application for
temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction
Petitioner: HON. PATRICIA STO. TOMAS, in her capacity of Secretarty of
DOLE, HON ROSALINA D. BALDOZ, in her capacity has Administrator of
POEA

resides.
6. PASEI argues that it is unconstitutional for it negates the general rule
on the venue of criminal cases for which is the place the crime or any
of its elements were committed.
ISSUES:
Whether or not Section 10 is unconstitutional?

Respondent: HON. JOSE G. PANEDA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of

Branch 220, Quezon Citym ASIAN RECRUITMENT COUNCIL PHILIPPINE PROVISION:
CHAPTER, Inc, etc
SECTION 9, MIGRANT WORKERS AND OVERSEAS FILIPINOS ACT
DOCTRINE

SEC. 9. Venue. A criminal action arising from illegal recruitment as defined

herein shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court of the province or city
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers
where the offense was committed or where the offended party actually
resides at the time of the commission of the offense:
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
Provided, that the court where the criminal action is first filed shall acquire
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the
admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts: Provided, however, that the
the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive aforestated provisions shall also apply to those criminal actions that have
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts already been filed in court at the time of the effectivity of this Act.
of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
SECTION 15, RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall
remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
Sec. 15. Place where action is to be instituted. - (a) Subject to existing laws,
the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality
FACTS:
or territory where the offense was committed or where any of its essential
ingredients occurred.
1. This case concerns the constitutionality of certain provisions of
(b) Where an offense is committed in a train, aircraft, or other public or
Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act.
private vehicle in the course of its trip, the criminal action shall be instituted
2. This is a consolidation of five petitions.
and tried in the court of any municipality or territory where such train, aircraft,
a. Two were filed by Salac, et.al. at the RTC of Quezon City.
or other vehicle passed during its trip, including the place of its departure and
They were assailing the constitutionality of Section 29 and arrival.
30 of said act.
(c) Where an offense is committed on board a vessel in the course of its
b. Another two were filed by spouses Cuaresma who were
voyage, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the first
assailing the constitutionality of Section 10.
port of entry or of any municipality or territory where the vessel passed
c. The pertinent petition is the one filed by Philippine
during such voyage, subject to the generally accepted principles of
Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI)
international law.
3. PASEI is assailing constitutionality of Section 6, 7, and 9.
(d) Crimes committed outside the Philippines but punishable under Article 2
4. Said sections deal with the definition of the crime of illegal
recruitment (Section 6), its penalties (Section 7) and the procedure of the Revised Penal Code shall be cognizable by the court where the
criminal action is first filed.
for filing a complaint (Section 9).
5. Section 9 (the pertinent provision) allows the filing of the criminal
case of illegal recruitment in the place where the offended party

RULING + RATIO:

(Section 29 and 30) in question. Section 7, 8 and 10 were also held

constitutional.

1. No. It is clearly stated in Sec 5, Par 5 of Art 8 of the 1987

Constitution that included in the Supreme Courts powers are the
DISPOSITION: PETITION DISMISSED.
powers to promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and
procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the
integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged.
a. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be
uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not
diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.
b. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial
bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the
Supreme Court.
c. This provision should be read In relation to Sec 15, Rule on
Criminal Procedure which provides for the venue of where
criminal action must be filed.
d. The last sentence of Sec 5, Par 5 clearly states that
UNLESS DISAPPORVED BY THE SUPREME COURT,
Rules of Procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial
bodies shall remain effective. Thus, it can be concluded that
the law does allow exceptions for cases as long as the SC
rules on it.
2. Furthermore, there is nothing arbitrary or unconstitutional in
Congress fixing an alternative venue for violations of Section 6 of
R.A. 8042 that differs from the venue established by the Rules on
Criminal Procedure. Indeed, Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the latter
Rules allows exceptions provided by laws.
a. SEC. 15. Place where action is to be instituted. (a) Subject
to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and
tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the
offense was committed or where any of its essential
ingredients occurred. (Emphasis supplied)
b. Thus, Section 9 of R.A. 8042, as an exception to the rule on
venue of criminal actions is, consistent with that laws
declared policy15 of providing a criminal justice system that
protects and serves the best interests of the victims of illegal
recruitment.
Note:
The other petitions were dismissed as well for being moot and academic
for RA 9422 was signed into law which expressly repealed the provisions