ALLEGATION AND PROOF OF VENUE; ABSENCE OF PROOF VENUE

‣ When the information alleges that the crime happened within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, this is sufficient for
the court to proceed with the case. At this stage, proof of venue is not yet required. Such proof is only required upon
trial.
‣ It is not enough that the information alleges that the crime occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the
court, it must also be proven during trial, especially when the accused objects to such fact.
‣ Even if the information alleges that the crime was committed in Makati, but other than the lone allegation in the
information, there is nothing in the prosecution evidence which even mentions that any of the elements of the offense
was committed in Makati, an objection may be raised based on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the
offense charged, or suck lack may be considered motu proprio by the court at any stage of the proceedings or on
appeal. (Trenas vs People)
‣ How improper venue be raised?
‣ Either by —
1. By the accused — through a motion to quash based on lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged due to improper
venue
2. By the court motu proprio, even without a motion to quash
‣ BUT — While jurisdiction cannot be situated by the parties and venue is jurisdictional, the prosecution and defense may
stipulate that the crime occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. In this case, the accused is estopped to
question such fact.

JURISPRUDENCE ON VENUE OF SELECTED OFFENSES

1. PERJURY/FALSIFICATION
‣ SEE — Union Bank vs People, G.R. No. 192565, February 28, 2012
‣ In this case the alleged falsified document (a certificate of non-forum shoppint) was presented in the Courts of Pasay. But it
was subscribed and sworn to in Makati.
‣ Case was filed in Makati and the accused wanted to quash the information saying it should have been filed in Pasay. Court
said that Makati was the proper venue.
‣ Where the jurisdiction of the court is being assailed in a criminal case on the ground of improper venue, the allegations in
the complaint and information must be examined together with Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure. On this basis, we find that the allegations in the Information sufficiently support a finding that the crime
of perjury was committed by Tomas within the territorial jurisdiction of the MeTCMakati City. The first element of the crime of
perjury, the execution of the subject Certificate against Forum Shopping was alleged in the Information to have been
committed in Makati City. Likewise, the second and fourth elements, requiring the Certificate against Forum Shopping to be
under oath before a notary public, were also sufficiently alleged in the Information to have been made in Makati City. We
also find that the third element of willful and deliberate falsehood was also sufficiently alleged to have been committed in
Makati City, not Pasay City, as indicated in the last portion of the Information.
‣ Tomas deliberate and intentional assertion of falsehood was allegedly shown when she made the false declarations in the
Certificate against Forum Shopping before a notary public in Makati City, despite her knowledge that the material
statements she subscribed and swore to were not true. Thus, Makati City is the proper venue and MeTC-Makati City is the
proper court to try the perjury case against Tomas, pursuant to Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure as all the essential elements constituting the crime of perjury were committed within the territorial
jurisdiction of Makati City, not Pasay City.
2. BP 22 CASES
‣ SEE — Rigor vs People, G.R. No. 144887. November 17, 2004
‣ Violations of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 are categorized as transitory or continuing crimes. In such crimes, some acts
material and essential to the crimes and requisite to their consummation occur in one municipality or territory and some in
another, in which event, the court of either has jurisdiction to try the cases, it being understood that the first court taking
cognizance of the case excludes the other. Hence, a person charged with a transitory crime may be validly tried in any
municipality or territory where the offense was in part committed.
‣ The evidence clearly shows that the undated check was issued and delivered at the Rural Bank of San Juan, Metro Manila
on November 16, 1989, and subsequently the check was dated February 16, 1990 thereat. On May 25, 1990, the check was
deposited with PS Bank, San Juan Branch, Metro Manila. Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled: Violations of B.P. 22
are categorized as transitory or continuing crimes. A suit on the check can be filed in any of the places where any of the
elements of the offense occurred, that is, where the check is drawn, issued, delivered or dishonored.
 ‣ SEE — Yalong vs People, G.R. No. 187174, August 28, 2013
‣ It is well-settled that violation of BP 22 cases is categorized as transitory or continuing crimes, which means that the acts
material and essential thereto occur in one municipality or territory, while some occur in another. Accordingly, the court
wherein any of the crime’s essential and material acts have been committed maintains jurisdiction to try the case; it being
understood that the first court taking cognizance of the same excludes the other. Stated differently, a person charged with a
continuing or transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or territory where the offense was in part committed.
Applying these principles, a criminal case for violation of BP 22 may be filed in any of the places where any of its elements
occurred – in particular, the place where the check is drawn, issued, delivered, or dishonored.
‣ In this case, while it is undisputed that the subject check was drawn, issued, and delivered in Manila, records reveal that
Ylagan presented the same for deposit and encashment at the LBC Bank in Batangas City where she learned of its
dishonor. As such, the MTCC correctly took cognizance of Criminal Case No. 45414 as it had the territorial jurisdiction to try
and resolve the same. In this light, the denial of the present petition remains warranted.
3. EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE
‣ SEE — Parulan vs Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L-28519, February 17, 1968
‣ There are crimes which are called transitory or continuing offenses because some acts material and essential to the crime
occur in one province and some in another, in which case, the rule is settled that the court of either province where any of
the essential ingredients of the crime took place has — jurisdiction to try the case.
There are, however, crimes which although all the elements thereof for its consummation may have occurred in a single place, yet by
reason of the very nature of the offense committed, the violation of the law is deemed to be continuing. Of the first class, the crime
of estafa or malversation and abduction may be mentioned; and as