You are on page 1of 17

People v.

Casey - Submitted 2page Sworn Statement where Casey


G.R. No. L-30146 | February 24, 1981 | Guerrero, J. narrated
Petitioner: People of the Philippines o Patrolman/Policeman Carritero also testified he was a
Respondent: Joseph Casey alias "Burl" and Ricardo Felix alias "CARDING o Awakened by noise that somebody was stabbed and
TUWAD"
shot and saw Valdez when he went out
Rules of Court Rule 110 Section 14
o Physician Mariano Cueva also testified on the Necropsy
Report
DOCTRINE
Casey Version:
o An Amended Information to include a co-accused even after a
o Casey went to Felix house but did not find him so proceeded
plea of guilty is valid because it is merely a formal amendment.
to Pool Room a few meters away
o Casey played pool and while playing accidentally bumped
FACTS Valdez with pool cue (tako)
o Mar 31 1968 – Joseph Casey alias “Buri” armed with Knife and o Casey apologized but saw Valdez with 6 or 7 men holding
Ricardo Felix alias “Carding Tuwad” armed with firearm shot pieces of wood when about to leave
and stabbed Alfredo Valdez with firearm and knife o While passing by Valdez brought out a Balisong and lunged on
him and was able to get the knife
o Alfredo Valdez was inflicted with Fatal Wounds directly
causing Death o He used knife to hit him 2-3 times and claims other
o May 22 1968 – Information for Murder against Casey filed with companions hit him with wood
Felix “Still at Large” Felix Version:
o Jun 24 1968 – Casey pleaded Not Guilty to crime charged in o Felix not see Casey on that day and knew Valdez
complaint upon Arraignment o Felix claims saw Valdez alive in a store before left Manila and
o Sept 1968 – Felix was arrested and Amended Information was learned he was dead upon returning
filed to include Felix as accused o Joseph Casey alias “Buri” and Ricardo Felix alias “Carding
o Oct 15, 1968 – Felix pleaded Not Guilty to crime charged in Tuwad” guilty of Murder of Alfredo Valdez
o Imposed Death Penalty + P12k damages to heirs of Valdez
complaint upon Arraignment
o Mercedes Palomo who is Resident of Mahinhin St. San Juan,
ISSUE
Rizal testified that
o W/N Court erred in Illegally trying Casey on Amended
- Heard gunshot from nearby Pool room at 3pm she
Information without Arraignment and in finding him guilty after
while at aunt house
such Illegal Trial – NO
- Looked towards Pool room and saw 3 men coming out,
1 being pursued by the 2 others
- Recognized man being pursued as Alfredo Valdez
alias “G.I.”
- Not know 2 others but described as short with curly
black hair, black complexion while other fair
complexion and was able to point Casey and Felix
when asked to identify them
- Saw Casey stab Valdez several times while Felix stood
nearby holding gun and fired once
o Policeman Rivera also testified on investigation conducted
before Judge Gorgonio involving Casey
Page 1 of 2
RULING & RATIO DISPOSITION
o Lack of Arraignment under Amended Information is objected to WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court under automatic review
by Casey on ground there is Violation of Constitutional Right to is MODIFIED in that the accused-appellants Joseph Casey and
be Informed of Charge against him Ricardo Felix are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
o Rule - There is only violation when Amendment pertains to of homicide without any attending circumstances and should be
matters of substance sentenced to reclusion temporal in its medium period. But applying
o In present case – Alterations introduced in Information refer to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, each of the accused is sentenced to
Inclusion of Felix to charge of Murder an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years ofprision mayor, as
o Not change nature of crime against accused Casey minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion
o Conspiracy, evident premeditation, treachery and taking temporal, as maximum. The accused are likewise sentenced to
advantage of superior strength are similarly alleged in both indemnify the heirs of the deceased Alfredo Valdez in the amount of
Informations TWELVE THOUSAND PESOS (P12,000.00) jointly and severally, and
o No Extenuating Circumstances is alleged in both to pay the costs.
o Hence – Amendment is one of form and not of substance and
not prejudicial to his rights
o Test to determine whether defendant Prejudiced by
Amendment:
- Whether defense under information as it originally
stood would be available after amendment
- Whether evidence of defendant would be equally
applicable to the Information in one form as in other
o Jurisprudence (US v. DELA CRUZ, US v. ALABAOT,
CASTRO v. OZAETA, etc) –
- When Amendment to Information introduced after
accused has pleaded Not Guilty
(a) does not change nature of crime alleged,
(b) does not expose accused to charge that
would call for higher penalty,
(c) does not affect essence of offense or cause
surprise or deprive accused of opportunity to
meet new averment had each been held to be
one of form and not substance
- Then Not Prejudicial to accused and not prohibited by
Sec 14 of RCP

Page 2 of 2
Fronda-Baggao v. People b. CA: In favor of defendants herein
G.R. No. 151785 | 539 SCRA 531 | December 10, 2007 | SANDOVAL-
GUTIERREZ, J ISSUES
Petition: Petition for Review on Certiorari 1. W/N multiple information can be amended into a singular one
Petitioners: Susan Fronda-Baggao 2. W/N such amendment violates the substantial right of the accused
Respondents: People of the Philippines
Amendment of Information RULING & RATIO
1. YES, it can be amended accordingly
DOCTRINE a. Although indeed the Rule uses the singular
Rules of Procedure allows for an amendment of multiple information into word complaint or information, it does not mean that two or more
a singular, graver one. complaints or Informations cannot be amended into only one
Information
Relevant Provision b. Surely not the intention of the Court. Will create an absurd
Section 14. Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure: situation where multiple information cannot be amended into a
Amendment or substitution. – A complaint or information may be amended, singular one
in form or in substance, without leave of court, at any time before the c. The Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their
accused enters his plea. After the plea and during the trial, a formal objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition
amendment may only be made with leave of court and when it can be done of every action and proceeding
without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused. 2. NO, it does not violate her substantial rights
a. anchors her contention on the fact that “after the plea and during
FACTS the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave of
a. Petitioner – Wanted for illegal recruitment court and when it can be done without causing prejudice to the
b. Respondent – rights of the accused”
2. Facts b. Under the Rules of Court, before the accused enters his plea, a
a. In 1989, the Provincial Prosecutor of Abra filed with RTC Branch formal or substantial amendment of the complaint or information
1 of Bangued, four separate Informations for illegal recruitment may be made without leave of court. After the entry of a plea,
against Susan Fronda-Baggao and Lawrence Lee only a formal amendment may be made but with leave of court
b. Arrested only on July of 1999, after a decade c. After arraignment, a substantial amendment is proscribed except
c. Prosecutor prayed that the 4 informations be amended so that it if the same is beneficial to the accused
would only be one Information for illegal recruitment in large d. In this case, petitioner has not yet been arraigned
scale
d. RTC first denied but subsequently granted upon MR DISPOSITION
e. Since it involved economic sabotage, it was forwarded to Branch WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. The challenged Decision and
2, a Special Criminal Court, which affirmed Branch 1’s decision Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 58270
f. CA also ruled for the defendants herein are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
3. Cause of Controversy
a. Petitioner contends that Section 14, Rule 110 of the Revised
Rules on Criminal Procedure refers only to an amendment of
one Information, and not about compounding many information
into a single information; and that
b. the amendment of the four Informations for illegal recruitment
into a single Information for a graver offense violates her
substantial rights.
4. Court Proceedings / Procedural History
a. RTC: Ruled in favor of defendant herein upon MR

Page 1 of 1
Pacoy v. Cajical (2007) o Public respondent entered for him a plea of not guilty.
On October 28, 2002, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash with Motion
Petition: Certiorari to Suspend Proceedings Pending the Resolution of the Instant
Petitioner: SSGT Jose M. Pacoy Motion on the ground of double jeopardy.
Respondent: Hon. Aable E. Cajical, People of the Philippines, Olympio L. o That in the Information for Homicide, he was validly indicted and
Escueta arraigned before a competent court,
Ponencia: Austria-Martinez, J. o The case was terminated without his express consent;
o When the case for Homicide was terminated without his express
consent, the subsequent filing of the Information for Murder in lieu of
DOCTRINE:
Homicide placed him in double jeopardy.
Respondent Judge denied ruling that
The test of whether the rights of an accused are prejudiced by the amendment
o A claim of former acquittal or conviction does not constitute double
of a complaint or information is whether a defense under the complaint or jeopardy and cannot be sustained unless judgment was rendered
information, as it originally stood, would no longer be available after the acquitting or convicting the defendant in the former prosecution;
amendment is made; and when any evidence the accused might have would be o Petitioner was never acquitted or convicted of Homicide, since the
inapplicable to the complaint or information. Information for Homicide was merely corrected/or amended before
trial commenced and did not terminate the same
FACTS: o The Information for Homicide was patently insufficient in substance, so
no valid proceedings could be taken thereon; and that with the
On July 4, 2002, an Information for Homicide was filed in the RTC
allegation of aggravating circumstance of “disregard of rank,” the
against petitioner: crime of Homicide is qualified to Murder.
o “That on or about the 18th day of March 2002, in the Municipality of Petitioner filed a Motion to Inhibit with attached Motion for
Mayantoc, Province of Tarlac, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
Reconsideration.
this Honorable Court, the said accused with intent to kill, did then and
o Motion to Inhibit: respondent judge exercised jurisdiction in an arbitrary,
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously shot his commanding officer
capricious and partial manner in mandating the amendment of the
2Lt. Frederick Esquita with his armalite rifle hitting and sustaining
charge from Homicide to Murder in disregard of the provisions of the
upon 2Lt. Frederick Esquita multiple gunshot wounds on his body
law and existing jurisprudence.
which caused his instantaneous death.
o MR: Basically same arguments but added that
contrary to respondent judge’s conclusion that disregard of
With the aggravating circumstance of killing, 2Lt. Frederick
rank qualifies the killing to Murder, it is a generic
Esquita in disregard of his rank.”
aggravating circumstance which only serves to affect
On September 12, 2002, upon arraignment, petitioner, pleaded not the imposition of the period of the penalty.
guilty to the charge of Homicide. Case was set for pre-trial conference The amendment and/or correction ordered by the
and trial on October 8, 2002. respondent judge was substantial; and under Section 14,
However, on the same day and after the arraignment, the respondent Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, this
judge issued another Order, directing the trial prosecutor to correct cannot be done, since petitioner had already been
and amend the Information to Murder in view of the aggravating arraigned and he would be placed in double jeopardy.
circumstance of disregard of rank alleged in the Information which Respondent judge denied motion to inhibit but granted motion for
public respondent registered as having qualified the crime to Murder. reconsideration conceding that “disregard of rank” is merely a generic
o Prosecutor entered his amendment by crossing out the word mitigating circumstance which should not elevate crime of homicide to
“Homicide” and instead wrote the word “Murder” in the murder.
caption and in the opening paragraph of the Information. Petitioner filed present petition
The accusatory portion remained exactly the same as that
of the original Information for Homicide, with the correction
of the spelling of the victim’s name from “Escuita” to “Escueta.” ISSUE:
On the date scheduled for pre-trial conference and trial, petitioner was 1. WON the amendment was an amendment in substance – NO.
to be re-arraigned for the crime of Murder.
o Petitioner refused to enter his plea on the amended Information RULING + RATIO:
for Murder 1. The amendment was merely formal.
a. While the amended Information was for Murder, a reading of the rank” is a generic aggravating circumstance which does not
Information shows that the only change made was in the qualify the killing of the victim to murder.
caption of the case; and in the opening d. He only rightly corrected himself by reinstating the original
paragraph or preamble of the Information, with the crossing Information for Homicide.
out of word Homicide and its replacement by the word e. The requisite of double jeopardy that the first jeopardy must
Murder. have attached prior to the second is not present,
b.There was no change in the recital of facts constituting the considering that petitioner was neither convicted nor
offense charged or in the determination of the jurisdiction acquitted; nor was the case against him dismissed or
of the court. otherwise terminated without his express consent.
c. The averments in the amended Information for Murder are
exactly the same as those already alleged in the original DISPOSITION:
Information for Homicide, as there was not at all Petition for review on certiorari is hereby DISMISSED.
any change in the act imputed to petitioner,
i.e., the killing of 2Lt. Escueta without any qualifying
circumstance.
2. Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court also provides that in
allowing formal amendments in cases in which the accused has
already pleaded, it is necessary that the amendments do not
prejudice the rights of the accused.
a. The test of whether the rights of an accused are prejudiced
by the amendment of a complaint or information is
i. whether a defense under the complaint or
information, as it originally stood, would no longer
be available after the amendment is made; and
ii. when any evidence the accused might have would
be inapplicable to the complaint or information.
b. Since the facts alleged in the accusatory portion of the amended
Information are identical with those of the original
Information for Homicide, there could not be any effect
on the prosecution's theory of the case; neither would there be
any possible prejudice to the rights or defense of petitioner.
3. There was no double jeopardy in the present case
a. Requisites:
i. a first jeopardy attached prior to the second;
ii. the first jeopardy has been validly terminated;
iii. a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the
first
b. It is the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal or
termination of the case that bars further prosecution for the
same offense or any attempt to commit the same or the
frustration thereof; or prosecution for any offense which
necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense
charged in the former complaint or information.
c. A reading of the Order showed that the respondent judge granted
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, not on the ground that
double jeopardy exists, but on his realization that “disregard of
Mendez vs. People
G.R. No. 179962 | June 11, 2014 | Brion, J. o Mendez was Arraigned on Mar 5 2007.
Petitioner: Dr. Joel C. Mendez o Prosecution filed a Motion to Amend Information with Leave of Court
Respondent: People of the Philippines; Court of Tax Appeals on May 4 2007.
Rule 110 Section 14: Amendment or Substitution o Change in Business Name to include phrase “Mendez
Medical Group”
DOCTRINE o Change in Branches to “QC, Muntinlupa City, Mandaluyong
o Change from 2001 To 2002; Insertion of “FOR INCOME EARNED”; City and Makati City”
change in name of business; change in branch of business are all o phrase insertion “for income earned”
formal amendments because the offense remains to be the failure to o CTA granted prosecution’s Motion when it ruled that the amendment
file Income Tax Return. was merely a formal one on Jun 12 2007.
o Merely states with additional precision something already
FACTS contained in original information
o Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) filed a complaint against Dr. Joel o Change in Business Name not alter fact that Mendez is
Mendez with the Department of Justice (DOJ). BIR alleges Dr. being charged with failure to file ITR
Mendez is operating as a single proprietor and doing business o Change in Branches not affect court jurisdiction nor change
and/or profession for Taxable Year 2001-2003 under Trade Names: nature of the offense charged
nd
o Mendez Body and Face Salon and Space (South QC, South 2 Information:
QC, Cubao), That on or about the 15th day of April, 2002, at Quezon City, and within the
o Mendez Body and Face Skin Clinic (East Makati) jurisdiction of [the CTA] the above named accused, doing business under the
o Weigh Less Center name and style of "Weigh Less Center"/Mendez Medical Group", with several
o Mendez Weigh Less Center (Pangasinan) branches in Quezon City, Muntinlupa City, Mandaluyong City and Makati City,
o BIR alleged that Mendez failed to file his Income Tax Returns (ITR) did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously fail to file his income
for 2001-2003 and evaded taxes. Mendez admitted that he was tax return (ITR) with the Bureau of Internal Revenue
operating as a Single Proprietor under 6 Trade Names. However, for income earned for the taxable year 2001, to the damage and prejudice of
Mendez countered that he did not file his returns because business the Government in the estimated amount of P1,089,439.08, exclusive of
was registered only in 2003. Hence, not yet in existence at time of penalties, surcharges and interest
alleged failure to file ITR. (underscoring and boldfacing in the original).
o State Prosecutor Navera found probable cause against Mendez for
non-filing of ITR for 2001-2002 and failure to supply correct o Mendez filed a Motion for Reconsideration claiming that the
information as to true income for 2003 in violation of National Internal amendment is substantial and prohibited under Rules of Criminal
Revenue Code (NIRC). Information was filed charging Mendez with Procedure (RCP) Rule 110 Sec 14.Mendez claims such is
Tax Reform Act RA 8424 Sec 255 violation with the Court of Tax substantial in nature and was not properly informed of the nature and
Appeals. cause of accusation against him.

st
1 Information:
That on or about the 15th day of April, 2002, at Quezon City, and within the
jurisdiction of [the CTA] the above named accused, a duly registered
taxpayer, and sole proprietor of "Weigh Less Center" with principal office at
Roces Avenue, Quezon City, and with several branches in Quezon City,
Makati, San Fernando and Dagupan City, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously fail to file his Income Tax Return (ITR)
with the Bureau of Internal Revenue for the taxable year 2001, to the
damage and prejudice of the Government
in the estimated amount of P1,089,439.08, exclusive of penalties, surcharges
and interest.
Page 1 of 2
ISSUE o Date Changes from 2001 to 2002;
o W/N the amendments made after arraignment were Substantial in o actual date of commission of the offense pertains to 2002 is
Nature. – NO only consistent with the allegation
in the information on the Taxable Year it covers
RULING & RATIO o Since, Information alleges Mendez failed to file ITR for
o There is no precise definition of what constitutes a substantial Taxable Year 2001, then the Offense committed is on 2002
amendment. Jurisprudence states that a substantial amendment is when the ITR is due on April of the succeeding year.
the change of recital of facts constituting Offense Charged and o Hence, the amendment was merely formal.
determinative of jurisdiction. RCP Rule 110 Sec 14 prohibits the o Insertion of “For Income Earned”
prosecution from seeking a substantial amendment particularly those o ITR is required to be filed precisely for income earned for the
that may prejudice the right of the accused once the accused is preceding taxable year
arraigned and enters plea. Right that may be Prejudiced is Right of o Hence, the amendment was merely formal, since the phrase
Accused to be Informed of Charge against him. merely states what is already contained in the original
o Rule – Amendments that do not charge another offense different information.
from that charged in the original complaint/Information or do not alter o Business Name Change to Include of “Mendez Medical Group”
Prosecution’s theory of the case so as to cause Surprise to the o Entity is nothing more than the Shadow of its Business
accused and affect the form of defense are merely Formal Owner – Mendez himself
Amendments. o “Mendez Medical Group” is expressly referred to in Paid
o ALMEDA v JUDGE VILLALUZ Advertisements of Mendez
o Additionally alleged Recidivism and Habitual Delinquency in o Branch Operation Changes
original information o Mendez cites MATALAM v SANDIGANBAYAN
o Court held that amendment did not have effect of charging a o However, this is inapplicable to the present case because:
different offense from the one charged ! There is a clear change in the cause of action from
o amendment does not tend to correct any defect in the “Refusal to Pay” to “Illegal Dismissal” in that case.
Jurisdiction of the Trial Court ! The main defense of the accused in the original
o Hence, the amendment was merely formal information was no longer available under the
o TEEHANKEE JR. v MADAYAG amended information.
o Prosecution sought to amend Frustrated to Consummated o Such case is inapplicable because in the present case, the
Murder prosecution’s cause for filing the information remained the
o Since victim died after information for Frustrated Murder was same as the cause of the original and the amended
filed information.
o Court held that there was no change in the nature of the o The amendment does not change the prosecution’s theory
offense charged nor a change in the prosecution’s theory that Mendez failed to file ITR
that the accused committed the felonious act with intent to o Hence, the amendment was merely formal and not
kill substantial, since it did not alter the crime charged.
o Hence, the amendment was merely formal

Page 2 of 2
Macasaet vs. People Paliparan, Sto. Niño, Marikina, as shown in his Reply-Affidavit filed
G.R. Number 156747 | 452 SCRA 255 | February 23, 2005 | Chico-Nazario, J. during the preliminary investigation
Petition: Review on Certiorari Petitioners replied that the use of the affidavit is not allowed;
Petitioners: Allen A. Macasaet, Nicolas V. Quijano, Jr., and Alfie Lorenzo they maintain that the motion to quash is only concerned with
Respondents: People of the Philippines, and Joselito Trinidad the information filed with the court, and no other
Rule 110, Section 15, Rules of Court (Venue) Petitioners add that, as both complaint-affidavit executed by
Trinidad and the information filed before the court state the
DOCTRINE he resides in Marikina City, dismissal of the case is
In criminal actions, venue is jurisdictional; the place where the crime was warranted for jurisdiction determined solely by the
committed determines not only the venue of the action but is an essential allegations contained in the complaint or information
element of jurisdiction Petitioners filed a Supplemental Reply which contained
Agbayani v Sayo rules on jurisdiction in cases of libel: (1) Whether the barangay certifications, which said (1) that Trinidad is not a
offended party is a public official or a private person, the criminal action resident of Sikatuna Village, Quezon City, and (2) that he is
may be filed in the CFI/RTC of the province or city where the libelous a resident of Sto. Niño, Marikina
article is printed and first published; (2) If the offended party is a private To the certifications, Trinidad replied that the
individual, the criminal action may also be filed in the CFI/RTC of the Sikatuna Village certification was issued after he had
province where he actually resides at the time of commission; (3) If the moved out his apartment unit in the said barangay
offended party is a public officer whose office is in Manila at the time of RTC of Quezon City dismissed the case due to jurisdiction
commission, action may be filed in the CFI/RTC of Manila; and (4) If the o That although the information alleged the venue of the case falls
offended party is a public officer holding office outside of Manila, action within the jurisdiction of Quezon City, evidence submitted for
may be filed in the CFI/RTC of the province or city where he held office at consideration indicated otherwise
the time of commission. Editorial box of “Abante” was in Intramuros, Manila; therefore,
the article was first printed and published in Manila
FACTS On page 4 of the Information, address of Trinidad appeared
Petition for Review on certiorari (Rule 45) of the CA Decision and to be the one in Marikina, although right below, a handwritten
Resolution on People v. Alfie Lorenzo, et al. annotation was seen (“131 Scout Lozano st., Brgy. Sacred
In the Information dated July 10, 1997, Alfie Lorenzo (columnist), Allen Heart, QC)
Macasaet (publisher), Nicolas Quijano, Jr. (managing editor), and Roger Strength of barangay certifications
Pajares (editor) of the newspaper “Abante” were charged before the RTC Affidavit-complaint attached to the Information (address was
of Quezon City for libel Marikina)
On September 12, 1997, petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss the libel case o In MR, Trinidad said that at the time of publication, he was residing
on the ground that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the offense in Quezon City and mistakenly stated that he was a resident of
o That, as the information discloses, residence of Trinidad was in Marikina because he understood the term “address” to mean the
Marikina; therefore, RTC of Quezon City did not have jurisdiction, place where he originally came from
pursuant to Art. 360 of the Revised Penal Code MR denied (Evidence: testimony of Del Rosario, owner of
“The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written apartment where Trinidad purportedly stayed, saying that
defamations as provided for in this chapter, shall be filed she was not aware of any inquiry being conducted by the
simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance officials of Sikatuna Village regarding Trinidad’s residency)
of the province or city where the libelous article is printed On appeal in the Court of Appeals, the CA reversed the RTC ruling and
and first published or where any of the offended parties held that for purposes of determining venue, actual residence is a person’s
actually resides at the time of the commission of the place of abode and not necessarily legal residence of domicile
offense…” o That the defect in original complaint as regards Trinidad’s residence
o Public prosecutor filed an Opposition, stating that during the time was cured by the affidavit submitted during the preliminary
material to the case, Trinidad was a resident of both 28-D Matino st., investigation
cor. Malumanay st., Sikatuna Village, Quezon City, ad Karen st.,

Page 1 of 2
ISSUES 3. If the offended party is a public officer whose
1. W/N RTC of Quezon City had territorial jurisdiction over the case – NO office is in Manila at the time of commission,
2. W/N Affidavit of Del Rosario may be appreciated in determining jurisdiction action may be filed in the CFI/RTC of Manila; and
– NO 4. If the offended party is a public officer holding
office outside of Manila, action may be filed in the
RULING & RATIO CFI/RTC of the province or city where he held
1. RTC of Quezon City had no territorial jurisdiction office at the time of commission.
a. Court: In criminal actions, venue is jurisdictional; the place where c. Trinidad was a private citizen at the time of the publication of the
the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the alleged libelous article, hence, he could only file his libel suit in
action but is an essential element of jurisdiction Manila where “Abante” was first published or in the province or
i. Uy v. Court of Appeals and People: It is a fundamental city where he actually resided at the time the purported libelous
rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal article was printed
cases the offense should have been committed or any i. Information filed reveal that the allegations therein are
one of its essential ingredients took place within the utterly insufficient to vest jurisdiction on the RTC of
territorial jurisdiction of the court. Territorial jurisdiction in Quezon City. Other than perfunctorily stating Quezon City
criminal cases is the territory where the court has at the beginning of the information, the assistant city
jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense prosecutor who prepared the information did not bother to
allegedly committed therein by the accused. Thus, it indicate whether the jurisdiction of RTC Quezon City was
cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an invoked either because Abante was printed in that place
offense allegedly committed outside of that limited or private respondent was a resident of said city at the
territory. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court over the time the claimed libelous article came out; either one of
criminal case is determined by the allegations in the these statements must be alleged in the information itself
complaint or information. And once it is so shown, the and the absence of both from the very face of the
court may validly take cognizance of the case. However, information renders the latter fatally defective
if the evidence adduced during the trial show that the 2. Affidavit of Del Rosario cannot be appreciated in determining territorial
offense was committed somewhere else, the court should jurisdiction
dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction a. People v. Alagao, et al.: General rule is that the facts contained in
b. Law is more particular in libel cases; Art. 360 of Revised Penal the complaint or information should be taken as they are
Code sets the venue for libel cases b. Court: Supplemental pleadings are there simply to “supplement”;
i. “The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of to add or support or augment the principal pleading. They cannot
written defamations as provided for in this chapter, shall supplant that which is stated in the principal pleading
be filed simultaneously or separately with the court of first
instance of the province or city where the libelous article DISPOSITION
is printed and first published or where any of the RTC Decision reinstated, CA Decision and Resolution reversed and set
offended parties actually resides at the time of the aside
commission of the offense…”
ii. Agbayani v Sayo rules on jurisdiction in cases of libel:
1. Whether the offended party is a public official or
a private person, the criminal action may be filed
in the CFI/RTC of the province or city where the
libelous article is printed and first published;
2. If the offended party is a private individual, the
criminal action may also be filed in the CFI/RTC
of the province where he actually resides at the
time of commission;

Page 2 of 2
Bonifacio v. RTC of Makati, Branch 149
Petitioner: Wonina Bonifacio, Jocelyn Upano, Vicente Ortuoste and Jovencia Pereche RULING + RATIO:
Respondents: RTC of Makati, Branch 149 and Jessie John Gimenez 1. YES. Venue is jurisdictional in criminal actions such that the place where the
crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action but
DOCTRINE: constitutes an essential element of jurisdiction. This principle acquires even
The venue of libel cases where the complainant is a private individual is limited to greater import in libel cases, given that Art. 360 specifically provides for the
only either of two places: 1. Where the complaint actually resides at the time of the possible venues for the institution of the criminal and civil aspects of such
commission of the offense; or 2. Where the alleged defamatory article was printed cases.
and first published.
The venue of libel cases where the complainant is a private individual is
FACTS: limited to only either of two places: 1. Where the complaint actually resides
• Private respondent Gimenez, on behalf of the Yuchengco Family and of the at the time of the commission of the offense; or 2. Where the alleged
Malayan Insurance Co. filed a criminal complaint for 13 counts of libel defamatory article was printed and first published. The amended information
against Piccio, Gatmaytan, Santos, Gutierrez, Upano, Dizon, Pareja, in the present case opted to lay the venue by availing of the second. Thus, it
Bonifacio, Cruz, Zafra, Ortueste, Jacinto, Pereche, Loytares, Suchiano, stated that the offending article “was first published and accessed by the
Monsod, John Doe as administrator of PEPCI’s website. private complainant in Makati City”. In other words, it considered that phrase
• PEPCI is formed by a large group of disgruntled planholders of Pacific Plans to be equivalent to the requisite allegation of printing and first publication.
owned by the Yuchengco Group of Companies – who had previously
purchased traditional pre-need educational plans but were unable to collect According to the Court in the case of Agbayani, before Article 360 was
or avail of the benefits after PPI filed for corporate rehabilitation. amended, the rule was that a criminal action for libel may be instituted in any
• Gimenez alleged that PEPCI owned, controlled, and moderated on the jurisdiction where the libelous article was published or circulated, irrespective
internet a blogspot as well as a yahoogroup which are easily accessible to of where it was written or printed. However, under this old rule, the offended
the public or by anyone logged on to the internet. He further alleged that party could harass the accused by filing the case in a remote place. To
upon accessing said websites, he read numerous articles maliciously and forestall such harassment, RA 4363 was enacted. It lays down specific rules
recklessly caused to be published containing highly derogatory statements as to the venue.
and false accusations attacking the Yuchengco family, YGC, and Malayan.
• May 5, 2006: Prosecutor’s Office found probable cause to indict the If the circumstances as to where the libel was printed and first published are
accused- filed 13 separate informations charging them with libel. used by the offended party as basis for the venue, the Information must
• June 6, 2006: petitioners filed upon public respondent a Motion to Quash the allege with particularity where the defamatory article was printed and first
Information on the grounds that it failed to vest jurisdiction on the Makati published, as evidenced by for instance, the address of their editorial or
RTC; the acts complained of are not punishable by law since internet libel is business offices. This becomes necessary in order to forestall any inclination
not covered by Art. 353 of the RPC; and the Information is fatally defective to harass.
for failure to designate the offense charged and the acts or omissions
complained of constituting the offense of libel. The same measure cannot be expected when it is a defamatory material
• October 3, 2006: public respondent quashed the information. It found that appearing on a website on the internet as there would be no way of
the information lacked any allegations that the offended parties were actually determining the situs of its printing and first publication. To credit Gimenez’s
residing in Makati at the time of the commission of the offense or that the premise of equating his first access to the defamatory article with “printing
alleged libelous article was printed and first published in Makati. and first publication” would spawn the very ills that the amendment to Art
• Prosecution moved to reconsider insisting that the information sufficiently 360 sought to prevent.
conferred jurisdiction. It said that the information need not allege verbatim
that the publication was “printed and first published” in the appropriate For the Court to hold that the Amended Information sufficiently vested
venue. It also pointed out that Malayan had an office in Makati of which jurisdiction in the courts of Makati simply because the article was accessed
Helen is a resident. therein would open the floodgates to the libel suit being filed in all other
locations where the website is likewise accessed or capable of being
• March 8, 2007: public respondent granted motion for reconsideration and
accessed.
ordered prosecutor to amend information.
• Petitioners moved to quash the amended information alleging that it still
DISPOSITION:
failed to vest jurisdiction upon public respondent.
Petition is GRANTED.
ISSUE:
1. WON public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting the
Amended Information
Rigor vs. People o Rigor denied the charges and claimed
G.R. No. 144887 | Nov 17 2014 | Azcuna, J. o Uy and Uy’s sister Agnes Angeles proposed to Rigor to
Petitioners: Alfredo Rigor secure a P500k loan from RB San Juan
Respondents: People of the Philippines o P200k in Rigor’s name and P300k in Uy’s name where
Rules of Court Rule 110 Sec 15 Angeles is to pay the unpaid loans of borrowers in their side
banking activities
DOCTRINE o Uy told Rigor he can put up his 4-door Mercedes Benz as
o TC San Juan may try the case despite it being issued at Rural Bank collateral for the P200k loan for it to be approved and the
San Juan, deposited at PSBank San Juan, but dishonored at Assoc P300k will have no collateral
Bank Tarlac. o Rigor agreed and signed a bank loan application form, PN
and chattel mortgage for his Benz
FACTS o Uy gave Rigor 2 premiere bank checks for P100k each
o Nov 16 1989 o Rigor issued an undated personal check for P500k
o Alfredo Rigor applied for a P500k commercial loan from o Check was deposited later in May but the check bounced
Rural Bank (RB) San Juan on Nov 16 1989. Rigor signed a o Rigor told Uy to get the Benz as payment of the P200k loan
Promissory Note (PN) stating a 24% interest per year. The o Uy refused and said he wanted to be paid the whole amount
loan was approved by RB San Juan Manager de Guzman of P500k
and Controller Agapito Uy. A cashiers check with P487k net o Trial Court of Pasig found Rigor guilty of violation of Sec 1 BP 22 on
proceeds of loan was issued to Rigor. Rigor endorsed and Jul 8 1994. Rigor was sentenced to an imprisonment of 6 months
encashed the check with the RB San Juan teller Cruz who and to pay P500k to RB San Juan. Rigor contends the Trial Court of
stamped the word “Paid”. Rigor issued an undated Pasig had no jurisdiction over the case since there was no proof
Associated Bank (AB) Tarlac Branch check in the amount of offered that his check was issued, delivered, dishonored or that
P500k payable to RB San Juan. The application, approval knowledge of insufficiency of the funds occurred in San Juan, Manila.
and receipt of proceeds were all in one day because Rigor is
the kumpare of RB San Juan President and he is well-known ISSUE
to directors because they all come from Tarlac. o W/N the Trial Court of Pasig had jurisdiction to try and decide case
o Rigor failed to pay the loan upon maturity of the loan on Dec 16 1989. for violation of BP 22. –YES
Rigor personally asked a 2 month extension but still failed to pay so
asked for another 2 month extension. Rigor failed to pay and asked
for a 30 day extension on Apr 16 1990 but was now denied by de
Guzman.
o de Guzman sent a formal demand letter on Apr 25 1990.
o RB San Juan deposited the AB check with PSBank (PSB) San Juan
on May 25 1990, but was returned because the account was closed.
AB Tarlac Employee Pasion declared the account was closed and
had at most P40k. Hence, the check was dishonored in Tarlac
despite it being deposited in PSB San Juan and was formerly issued
with RB San Juan.

Page 1 of 2
RULING & RATIO
o Rule – a person charged with a transitory crime may be validly tried
in any municipality or territory where the offense was in part
committed
o Violations of BP 22 are categorized as transitory or continuing crimes
because some acts material and essential to the crimes and
requisite to their consummation occur in one municipality or territory
and some in another.
st
o Either court has jurisdiction to try cases given that the 1 court taking
the case excludes other courts.
o Evidence showed the undated check was i
o issued and delivered at RBSJ San Juan on Nov 16 1989
o subsequently dated Feb 16 1990 also at San Juan
o deposited on May 25 1990 with PSBank San Juan but
dishonored by Associated Bank
o San Juan is place of drawing and issuing whereas Tarlac was the
place where it was dishonred
o Thus, the CA correctly ruled that a suit on the check can be filed in
any of the places where any of the elements of offense occurred:
Drawn, Issued, Delivered or Dishonored
o Hence, the offense is triable by the Trial Court of Pasig

DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court
of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR No. 18855, is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioner.

Page 2 of 2
Unionbank v. People b. Both complaints (representing UBP) showed that Tomas executed
G.R. No. 192565 | 667 SCRA 113 | Feb. 28, 2012 | Brion, J. and signed a certification against Forum Shopping.
Petition: rule 45 i. Accordingly, she was charged of deliberately violating Art. 183 of
Petitioners: Unionbank of the Philippines and Desi Tomas the RPC (Perjury) by falsely declaring under oath in the
Respondents: People of the Philippines Certificate against Forum Shopping in the second complaint that
Section 15, Rule 110 she did not commence any other action or proceeding involving
the same issue in another tribunal or agency.
DOCTRINE c. Tomas moved to quash, citing two grounds.
• The crime of perjury committed through the making of a false i. She argued that venue was improperly laid since it is the
affidavit under Article 183 of the RPC is committed at the time the Pasay City Court (where the cert. against forum shopping
affiant subscribes and swears to his or her affidavit since it is at that was submitted and used) and not the MeTC- Makati (where
time that all the elements of the crime of perjury are executed. the cert. against forum shopping was subscribed) that has
jurisdiction over the perjury case.
• When the crime is committed through false testimony under oath in a d. The MeTC- Makati denied motion to quash the information for
1
proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil, venue is at the place where perjury , ruling that it has jurisdiction over the case since the
the testimony under oath is given. If in lieu of or as supplement to the certificate was notarized in Makati. Motion for reconsideration
actual testimony made in a proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil, a was denied as well.
written sworn statement is submitted, venue may either be at the place 2. Court Proceedings / Procedural History
where the sworn statement is submitted or where the oath was taken as a. RTC: DISMISSED certiorari petition of petitioners.
the taking of the oath and the submission are both material ingredients i. Petitioner: certiorari to annul and set aside the MeTC-Makati City
of the crime committed. In all cases, determination of venue shall be orders on ground of grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners
based on the acts alleged in the Information to be constitutive of the argued that venue and jurisdiction should be in the place where
crime committed. the false document was presented.
Relevant Provision ii. RATIONALE: the MeTC- Makati has jurisdiction to try and decide
2
Section 15, Rule 110, Rules of Court: Place where action is to be instituted. – the case for perjury since the gist of the complaint constituting
(a) subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the the charge against Tomas dwells solely on the act of subscribing
court of the municipality or territory where the offense was committed or to a false certification.
where any of its essential ingredients occurred. iii. RTC denied motion for reconsideration.
(b) where an offense is committed in a train, aircraft or other public or private
vehicle in the course of its trip, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried b. Hence, this petition where the petitioners pray for reversal of the
in the court of any municipality or territory where said train, aircraft, or other RTC decision, and quash the Information for perjury against Tomas.
vehicle passed during its trip, including the place of departure and arrival.
(c) Where an offense is committed on board a vessel in the course of its voyage,
the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the first port of
entry or of any municipality or territory where the vessel passed during such 1
Information for perjury against Tomas reads:
voyage, subject to the generally accepted principles of international law. That on or about the 13th day of March 2000 in the City of Makati, Metro Manila,
(d) Crimes committed outside the Philippines but punishable under Article 2 of Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
the Revised Penal Code shall be cognizable by the court where the criminal
accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously make untruthful
action is first filed.
statements under oath upon a material matter before a competent person authorized
to administer oath which the law requires to wit: said accused stated in the
FACTS
Verification/Certification/Affidavit of merit of a complaint for sum of money with prayer
a. Petitioner Desi Tomas was accused of perjury. The accusation
stemmed from UBP’s two (2) complaints for a sum of money against for a writ of replevin docketed as [Civil] Case No. 342-00 of the Metropolitan Trial
spouses. Tamondong and a John Doe. The first complaint was Court[,] Pasay City, that the Union Bank of the Philippines has not commenced any
filed before RTC br. 109, Pasay City on Apr. 13, 1998. The other action or proceeding involving the same issues in another tribunal or agency,
second complaint was filed on Mar. 15, 2000 and was raffled to accused knowing well that said material statement was false thereby making a willful
MeTC br. 47, Pasay City. and deliberate assertion of falsehood.

Page 1 of 2
3
ISSUES e. As regards perjury , the material matter in a certificate against
1. W/N MeTC – Makati, where cert. against forum shopping was notarized, forum shopping is the truth of the required declarations which is
(and not Pasay City, where the cert. was presented to the trial court) that designed to guard against litigants pursuing simultaneous
has jurisdiction over the perjury case, and therefore quashal of remedies in different fora.
information for perjury was validly denied. – YES, MeTC- Makati is the f. Allegations in the complaint and information must be examined
proper venue and proper court. with Section 15, Rule 110. Court finds that the allegations in the
Information sufficiently support a finding that Tomas committed
RULING & RATIO the crime of perjury within the territorial jurisdiction of the MeTC-
1. YES, MeTC- Makati is the proper venue and proper court to take Makati.
cognizance of the perjury case against petitioners. Denial of motion i. First element of perjury – execution of subject certificate
of quash valid. was alleged in the information to have been committed
a. Petitioner: contend that the ruling in Ilusorio is more applicable in Makati.
than the ruling in Sy Tiong ii. Second and fourth elements requiring certificate to be
i. Ilusorio – facts showed that filing of petitions in court under oath before notary public were also alleged in the
containing false statements was the essential ingredient that information to have been made in Makati.
consummated the perjury. iii. Third element of willful and deliberate falsehood also
ii. Sy Tiong – perjurious statements were made in a Gen. Info. alleged to have been committed in Makati, not Pasay as
Sheet (GIS), submitted to the SEC. indicated in the last portion of the Information.
iii. Sol Gen shared petitioners view. Sol Gen opined that the lis g. Tomas’ deliberate and intentional assertion of falsehood was
mota of perjury is the deliberate or intentional giving of false allegedly shown when she made the false declaration in the
evidence in the court where the evidence is material. In this certificate against forum shopping before a notary public in
case, Sol Gen observed that the criminal intent to assert a Makati City, despite her knowledge that the material statements
falsehood under oath only became manifest before the she subscribed and swore to were not true.
MeTC- Pasay. h. Makati City is the proper venue and MeTC-Makati is the proper
b. Court: in determining venue where the criminal action is to be court to try the perjury case against Tomas, as all essential
instituted and the court which has jurisdiction over it, Section elements constituting the crime of perjury were committed
15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Crim. Pro. within the territorial jurisdiction of Makati City, not Pasay
Provides that “subject toe existing laws, the criminal action shall City.
be instituted and tried in the court or municipality or territory i. The crime of perjury committed through the making of a false
where the offense was committed or where any of its affidavit under Art. 183 of the RPC is committed a the time the
essential ingredients occurred.” affiant subscribes and swears to his or her affidavit since it is at
c. Sec. 15, R 110 should be read with Sec. 10, R 110 which that time that all the elements of the crime of perjury are
provides that “ the complaint or information is sufficient if it can executed.
be understood from its allegations that the offense was DISPOSITION
committed or some of its essential ingredients occurred at some • PETITION DENIED.
place within the jurisdiction of the court, unless the particular
place where it was committed constitutes an essential element of
the offense charged or is necessary for its identification.” 3
Elements of Perjury Art. 183 –
d. Both provisions place venue and jurisdiction over criminal cases
(a) That the accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon
not only in the court where the offense was committed, but also a material matter.
where any of its essential ingredients took place. The venue of (b) That the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to
action and of jurisdiction are deemed sufficiently alleged where receive and administer oath.
the Information states that the offense was committed or some of (c) That in the statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate
its essential ingredients occurred at a place within the territorial assertion of a falsehood.
jurisdiction of the court. (d) That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or
made for a legal purpose.

Page 2 of 2
Treñas v. People incurred: P20,000- Attorney’s fees, P90,000- Capital Gains Tax,
G.R. No. 195002 | 664 SCRA 355 | January 25, 2012 | Sereno, J. P24,000- Documentary Stamp, P10,000- Miscellaneous Expenses
Petition: Petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the – (Total: P144,000).
Court of Appeals 2. Thereafter, Elizabeth gave P150,000 to Hector who issued a
Petitioner: Hector Treñas corresponding receipt dated December 22, 1999 and prepared a Deed of
Respondent: People of the Philippines Sale with Assumption of Mortgage.
Rule 110 – Prosecution of Offenses; Section 15 – Venue a. Subsequently, Hector gave Elizabeth Revenue 2 official receipts for
P96,000.00 and for P24,000.
DOCTRINE b. However, when she consulted with the BIR, she was informed that
• The place where the crime was committed determines not only the the receipts were fake.
venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction. c. When confronted, Hector admitted to her that the receipts were fake
Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is and that he used the P120,000 for his other transactions. Elizabeth
determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. And once it demanded the return of the money.
is so shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case. However, 3. To settle his accounts, appellant Hector issued in favor of Elizabeth a
if the evidence adduced during the trial shows that the offense was Bank of Commerce check in the amount of P120,000, deducting from
committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want P150,000 the P30,000 as attorney’s fees. When the check was
of jurisdiction. In a criminal case, the prosecution must not only prove deposited with the PCIBank, Makati Branch, the same was dishonored
that the offense was committed, it must also prove the identity of the for the reason that the account was closed.
accused and the fact that the offense was committed within the a. Appellant failed to pay despite repeated demands.
jurisdiction of the court. (Isip v. People) b. Thus, the instant case of estafa was filed against him.
4. October 29, 2001: an information was filed by the Office of the City
RELEVANT PROVISION Prosecutor before the RTC, both of Makati City. Details as follows:
Rule 110, Section 15 of the Rules of Court: a. “That on or about the 23rd day of December, 1999, in the City of Makati, Metro
Section 15. Place where action is to be instituted. — Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
(a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the above-named accused, received in trust from ELIZABETH LUCIAJA the amount of
municipality or territory where the offense was committed or where any of its essential P150,000.00 which money was given to her by her aunt Margarita Alocilja, with the
ingredients occurred. express obligation on the part of the accused to use the said amount for expenses
(b) Where an offense is committed in a train, aircraft, or other public or private vehicle while in and fees in connection with the purchase of a parcel of land covered by TCT No.
the course of its trip, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of any T-109266, but the said accused, once in possession of the said amount, with the
municipality or territory where such train, aircraft or other vehicle passed during such its trip,
intent to gain and abuse of confidence, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
including the place of its departure and arrival.
(c) Where an offense is committed on board a vessel in the course of its voyage, the criminal
feloniously misappropriate, misapply and convert to his own personal use and
action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the first port of entry or of any municipality or benefit the amount of P130,000.00 less attorney’s fees and the said accused failed
territory where the vessel passed during such voyage, subject to the generally accepted and refused and still fails and refuses to do so, to the damage and prejudice of
principles of international law. complainant Elizabeth Luciaja and Margarita Alocilja in the aforementioned amount
(d) Crimes committed outside the Philippines but punishable under Article 2 of the Revised Penal of P130,000.00.
Code shall be cognizable by the court where the criminal action is first filed. (15a) 5. April 26, 2002: petitioner, acting with counsel, entered a plea of “Not
guilty.”
FACTS a. Allegedly due to old age and poor health, and the fact that he lives
1. Sometime in December 1999, Margarita Alocilja wanted to buy a in Iloilo City, petitioner was unable to attend the pre-trial and trial of
house-and-lot in Iloilo City. It was then mortgaged with Maybank. The the case.
bank manager Joselito Palma recommended the appellant Hector 6. Court Proceedings / Procedural History
Treñas to private complainant Elizabeth, who was an employee and a. RTC: January 8, 2007: convicted petitioner guilty of crime of estafa under
niece of Margarita, for advice regarding the transfer of the title in the Sec. 1, par. (b), of Article 31 of the Revised Penal Code.
latter’s name. i. Sentence of accused: penalty of 10 years & 1 day of Prision
Mayor to 17 years & 4 months of Reclusion Temporal.
a. Hector informed Elizabeth that for the titling of the property in the
ii. Accused also ordered to indemnify private complainant
name of her aunt Margarita, the following expenses would be Elizabeth Luciaja the amount of P130,000 with interest at the
Page 1 of 3
legal rate of 12% per annum, reckoned from the date this case iii.OSG however submits that the Court may recommend petitioner for
was filed until the amount is fully paid. executive clemency in view of advanced age and failing health.
iii. August 24, 2007: MR filed by petitioner Court’s ruling:
iv. July 2, 2008: RTC denied MR in a Resolution. c. In this case, the findings of fact of the lower courts on the issue of the
v. September 25, 2008: petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal before place of commission of the offense are conclusions without any citation
RTC. of the specific evidence; they are grounded on conclusions and
b. CA: July 9, 2010: CA affirmed RTC decision conjectures. Hence, this instant case is an exception allowing a review
i. August 4, 2010: MR filed by petitioner before CA. of the factual findings of the lower courts.
ii. January 4, 2011: MR denied by the CA in a Resolution. i. The trial courts decision ruled on the commission of estafa but the decision did not
c. January 23, 2011: petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File contain any finding as to where it was committed.
Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court. He asked for a ii. Moreover, in the petitioner’s MR before the RTC, petitioner raised the argument
period of 15 days within which to file a petition for review. that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the offense charged. The RTC denied the
d. February 9, 2011: the Court granted his motion in a Resolution. motion, without citing evidence upon which its findings were based, and by relying
e. February 3, 2011: petitioner filed this petition for review. on mere conjecture.
iii. The RTC denying the petitioner’s MR merely mentions Makati City only as part of
ISSUES (only issue #1 is Crim-Pro related) its own conjecture, saying that: “…Even if the Deed of Sale with Assumption of
Mortgage was executed on 22 December 999 in Iloilo City, it cannot preclude the
1. W/N the CA erred in ruling that an accused has to present evidence in support of
fact that the P150,000.00 was delivered to him by private complainant Luciaja in
the defense of lack of jurisdiction even if such lack of jurisdiction appears in the
Makati City the following day.”
evidence of the prosecution. – YES, CA (and RTC) erred in ruling. The RTC, to
d. The overarching consideration in this case is the principle that, in
begin with, had no jurisdiction over the case. However, case is referred to the
criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional. A court cannot exercise
IBP Board of Governors for investigation given that such violated the Code of
jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense committed outside its
Professional Responsibility [SEE NOTES ON THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL
limited territory.
RESPONSIBILITY].
e. Moreover, jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal case cannot
2. [[W/N the CA erred in ruling that demand made by a person other than the
be conferred upon the court by the accused, by express waiver or
aggrieved party satisfies the requirement of demand to constitute the offense of
otherwise. That jurisdiction is conferred by the sovereign authority that
estafa]] – (Given CA and RTC erred on issue 1, the Court said there is no more
organized the court and is given only by law in the manner and form
need to discuss this issue raised by the petitioner).
prescribed by law. In a criminal case, the prosecution must not only
prove that the offense was committed, it must also prove the identity of
RULING & RATIO the accused and the fact that the offense was committed within the
1. YES, CA and RTC erred. jurisdiction of the court. [SEE DOCTRINE]
a. Petitioner’s claims: Petitioner asserts that the prosecution witness f. In Fukuzume v. People, this Court dismissed a Complaint for estafa,
failed to allege that any of the acts material to the crime of estafa had wherein the prosecution failed to prove that the essential elements of
occurred in Makati City. the offense took place within the trial courts jurisdiction. The crime was
i. No evidence by the prosecution shows that P150,000 was given to and received by alleged in the Information as having been committed in Makati; however
petitioner in Makati City.
no other evidence was presented by the prosecution aside from the
ii. Meanwhile, the Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage prepared by petitioner was
signed and notarized in Iloilo City. Petitioner claims that the only logical conclusion is that sworn statement executed by Yu.
the money was actually delivered to him in Iloilo City where he resides. g. In this case, the prosecution failed to show that the offense of estafa
iii. Absent any direct proof as to the place of delivery, one must rely on the disputable under Section 1, paragraph (b) of Article 315 of the RPC was committed
presumption that things happened according to the ordinary course of habits of life. within the jurisdiction of the RTC of Makati City.
iv. The only time Makati City was mentioned was with respect to the time when the check i. That the offense was committed in Makati City was alleged in the
provided by petitioner was dishonored by Equitable-PCI Bank in its De la Rosa-Rada Branch information as follows: “That on or about the 23rd day of December,
in Makati. 1999, in the City of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines and within
v. Thus, the trial court failed to acquire jurisdiction over the case.
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, …”
vi. Petitioner thus argues that an accused is not required to present evidence to prove lack of
jurisdiction, when such lack is already indicated in the prosecution evidence. ii. Ordinarily, this statement would have been sufficient to vest
b. OSG’s position: jurisdiction in the RTC of Makati. However, the Affidavit of
i. RTC did not err in convicting petitioner as charged. Complaint executed by Elizabeth does not contain any allegation as
ii. With respect to petitioner’s claim that complaint should have been to where the offense was committed. [SEE ORIGINALS FOR
filed in Iloilo City, his claim was not supported by any piece of AFFIDAVIT].
evidence. h. Aside from the lone allegation in the Information, no other evidence
was presented by the prosecution to prove that the offense or any of its
elements was committed in Makati City. Likewise, the testimony of
Page 2 of 3
Elizabeth also does not mention any place where offense was allegedly NOTES
committed. • In resolving the case, the Court noted that the Code of Professional
i. With regard to the elements of estafa, the Court discussed the elements Responsibility strongly militates against the petitioners conduct in handling the
1
of estafa under Article 315, par. 1 (b) of the RPC. Although the funds of his client. Rules 16.01 and 16.02 of the Code provides: Rule 16.01: “A
prosecution alleged that the check issued by petitioner was dishonored lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from
in a bank in Makati, such dishonor is not an element of the offense of the client.” Rule 16.02: “A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate
estafa under Article 315, par. 1 (b) of the RPC. and apart from his own and those others kept by him.”
j. Section 15 (a) of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal o The failure of the lawyer either to render an accounting or to return the
Procedure of 2000 provides that subject to existing laws, the criminal money (if the intended purpose of the money does not materialize)
action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional
territory where the offense was committed or where any of its essential Responsibility.
ingredients occurred. o It is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional
i. This fundamental principle is to ensure that the defendant is not ethics; it impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves
compelled to move to, and appear in, a different court from that of punishment.
the province where the crime was committed as it would cause him o In Cuizon v. Macalino, the Court ruled that the issuance of checks which
great inconvenience in looking for his witnesses and other evidence were later dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account
in another place. indicates a lawyer's unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on
ii. This principle echoes more strongly in this case, where, due to him, shows lack of personal honesty and good mor al character
distance constraints, coupled with his advanced age and failing as to render him unworthy of public confidence, and constitutes a
health, petitioner was unable to present his defense in the charges ground for disciplinary action.
against him. • This case is thus referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for the
k. There being no showing that the offense was committed within Makati, initiation of disciplinary proceedings against petitioner. In any case, should
the RTC of that city has no jurisdiction over the case. As such, there is there be a finding that petitioner has failed to account for the funds received by
NO need to discuss the other issue raised by petitioner. him in trust, the recommendation should include an order to immediately return
the amount of ₱130,000 to his client, with the appropriate rate of interest from the
2. (Given CA erred on issue 1, the Court said there is no more need to discuss this time of demand until full payment.
issue raised by the petitioner)

DISPOSITION
• WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated 9 July 2010 and
the Resolution dated 4 January 2011 issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR No. 32177 are SET ASIDE on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on the part of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 137, Makati City. Criminal Case No. 01-2409 is
DISMISSED without prejudice. This case is REFERRED to the IBP Board of
Governors for investigation and recommendation pursuant to Section 1 of Rule
139-B of the Rules of Court.

1 Elements of estafa under Art. 315, par. 1(b) of the RPC: (1) that money, goods or other personal
property is received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any
other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same; (2) that there be
misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on his part of
such receipt; (3) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another;
and (4) there is demand by the offended party to the offender”
Page 3 of 3

You might also like