You are on page 1of 2


Petitioners gripe that the charges against him should be

No. 160451, February 9, 2007 dismissed because the allegations in both Informations failed to
name PCIB as true offended party does not hold water.
FACTS: Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure
states that a complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name
of the accused; the designation of the offense by the statute; the acts
Petition was a collector-messenger assigned to the main
or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of
office of Caltex-Philippines Inc. His primary task was to collect
checks payable to Caltex and deliver them to the cashier. He also the offended party; the approximate time of the commission of the
delivered invoices to Caltexs customers. offense; and the place wherein the offense was committed. In
relation to Section 12 of the same Rule, the complaint or information
On November 6, 1997, he was sued for estafa through
must state the name and surname of the person against whom or
falsification of commercial documents by Caltex, through its Banking
against whose property the offense was committed.
and Insurance Department Manager Ramon Romano. Petitioner
Estafa is a crime against property under the Revised Penal
allegedly opened a PCIB Savings Account under the name of Dante
R. Gutierrez to which he deposited two forged Caltex checks. Code. In Sayson v. People, the Court held that in case of offenses
Petitioner was able to obtain two unsigned Caltex checks payable to against property, the designation of the name of the offended party is
not absolutely indispensable for as long as the criminal act charged
Gutierrez then proceeded to forge the signatures of Ramon Romano
in the complaint or information can be properly identified.
and Victor Goquinco (Caltex authorized officers/signatories) and of
In U.S. v. Kepner [1 Phil. 519 (1902)], this Court laid down
payee Dante R. Gutierrez for its supposed endorsement.
the rule that when an offense shall have been described in the
In the meantime, the PCIB credited the amount
of P581,229.00 to Caltex on March 29, 1998. However, the City complaint with sufficient certainty as to Identify the act, an erroneous
Prosecutor of Makati City was not informed of this development. City allegation as to the person injured shall be deemed immaterial as the
same is a mere formal defect which did not tend to prejudice any
Prosecutor filed two (2) Informations for estafa with Caltex as the
substantial right of the defendant.
offended party on June 29, 1998.
After arraignment, PCIB appeared as the complainant.
Petitioner opposed PCIBs participation and contended that the twin
Informations were DEFECTIVE AND VOID due to the FALSE
ALLEGATIONS that the offense was committed to the prejudice of
Caltex when it truth and in fact the one prejudiced was PCIB. The
twin information being defective and void, the same should be
dismissed without prejudice to the filing of another information which
should state the offense was committed to the prejudice of PCIBank
if it still legally possible without prejudicing substantial and statutory
rights of the petitioner.

Whether or not the Informations were defective and void for
failing to name PCIB as the true offended party

UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES AND DESI TOMAS VS. be instituted, but also the court that has the jurisdiction to try and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 192565, February 28, hear the case.
2012 Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure
states that a complaint or information is sufficient if it states (among
FACTS: others) the place wherein the offense was committed. In relation
to Section 10 of the same Rule, the complaint or information is
Petitioner Union bank filed two complaints for sum of money sufficient if it can be understood from its allegations that the offense
with prayer for a writ of replevin against spouses Tamondong and a was committed or some of its essential ingredients occurred at some
John Doe. The first complaint was filed before the RTC, Branch 109, place within the jurisdiction of the court, unless the particular place
Pasay City on April 13, 1998. The second complaint was filed on where it was committed constitutes an essential element of the
March 15, 2000 and was raffled in the MeTC, Branch 47, Pasay City. offense charged or is necessary for its identification.
In both cases, Desi Tomas executed and signed the Certification In determining the venue where the criminal action is to be
against Forum Shopping. instituted and the court which has jurisdiction over it, Section 15(a),
Subsequently, she was charged of deliberately violating Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
Article 183 of the RPC (perjury) "by falsely declaring under oath in
the Certificate against Forum Shopping in the second complaint that (a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be
she did not commence any other action or proceeding involving the instituted and tried in the court or municipality or
same issue in another tribunal or agency". The Certification was territory where the offense was committed or where any of
notarized in Makati City but was submitted and used in Pasay City, its essential ingredients occurred. [emphasis ours]
while the Information against Union Bank and Tomas was filed in
Makati. This should be read in light of Section 10, Rule 110. Both
Tomas filed a Motion to Quash, claiming, among others that provisions categorically place the venue and jurisdiction over criminal
that the venue was improperly laid since it is the Pasay City court cases not only in the court where the offense was committed, but
(where the Certificate against Forum Shopping was submitted and also where any of its essential ingredients took place. In other words,
used) and not the MeTC-Makati City (where the Certificate against the venue of action and of jurisdiction are deemed sufficiently alleged
Forum Shopping was subscribed) that has jurisdiction over the where the Information states that the offense was committed or
perjury case. some of its essential ingredients occurred at a place within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court.
ISSUE: The first element of the crime of perjury, the execution of the
Whether or not the proper venue of perjury under Article 183 subject Certificate against Forum Shopping was alleged in the
of the RPC should be Pasay City where the Certification was Information to have been committed in Makati City. Likewise, the
presented to the trial court second and fourth elements, requiring the Certificate against Forum
Shopping to be under oath before a notary public, were also
RULING: sufficiently alleged in the Information to have been made
The Court held that the MeTC-Makati City is the proper in Makati City
venue and the proper court to take cognizance of the perjury case
against the petitioners.
Venue is an essential element of jurisdiction in criminal
cases. It determines not only the place where the criminal action is to