JURISDICTION OVER THE TERRITORY

CONCEPT OF “TERRITORIALITY” IN CRIMINAL CASES

‣ Refers to the jurisdiction of the court over the place (venue) of the commission of the offense.
‣ This element requires the the offense must have been committed within the court’s territorial jurisdiction
‣ This fact is to be determined by the facts alleged in the complaint or information as regards to the place where the offense
charged was committed
‣ Venue is an essential element of jurisdiction in criminal cases. It determines not only the place where the criminal action is to be
instituted, but also the court that has the jurisdiction to try and hear the case. The reason for this rule is two-fold.
1. The jurisdiction of trial courts is limited to well-defined territories such that a trial court can only hear and try cases involving
crimes committed within its territorial jurisdiction.
2. Laying the venue in the locus criminis is grounded on the necessity and justice of having an accused on trial in the
municipality of province where witnesses and other facilities for his defense are available. (Union Bank vs People 2012)
‣ SEE — Isip vs People, G.R. No. 170298, June 26, 2007
‣ The concept of venue of actions in criminal cases, unlike in civil cases, is jurisdictional. The place where the crime was committed
determines not only the venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction
‣ It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases, the offense should have been committed or
any one of its essential ingredients should have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
‣ Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense
allegedly committed therein by the accused. Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense allegedly
committed outside of that limited territory.
‣ Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information.
Once it is so shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case. However, if the evidence adduced during the trial shows
that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT WHICH HAS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE CRIME
‣ RULE — IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, THE ACTION SHALL BE INSTITUTED AND TRIED IN THE COURT OF THE MUNICIPALITY OR TERRITORY WHEREIN EITHER THE — 1.
Offense was committed, or
2. Any of the essential ingredients took place (such as for transitory or continuing crimes)
‣ Example — If the crime of murder was committed in Manila, it is in the proper court of Manila in which the criminal action shall be
instituted and tried and not elsewhere. If robbery was committed in Quezon City, it is in the proper court of Quezon City in which
the action shall be constituted and tried.
‣ EXCEPT — IN THE FOLLOWING CASES, THE OFFENSES NEED NOT BE INSTITUTED, PROSECUTED, AND/OR TRIED IN THE PLACE WHERE THE OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED
(SEE SEC. 15 OF RULE 110) —
1. Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code
‣ Where the offense was committed under the circumstances enumerated under Art. 2 of the RPC, the offense is cognizable
before Philippine courts even if committed outside the territory of the Philippines. In this case, the offense is cognizable by
the court where the criminal action is first filed
‣ These circumstances are:
a. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship
b. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the
Government of the Philippine Islands;chan robles virtual law library
c. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned
in the presiding number
d. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or
e. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of
this Code.
2. SUPREME COURT ORDERS TRANSFER OF THE CASE (ART. 8, SEC. 5[4], 1987 CONSTITUTION)
‣ BUT — In this case, only the trial is transferred but the action is still instituted in the proper venue
3. CRIMES IN MOVING VEHICLES (RULE 110, SEC. 15[B,C])
 ‣ 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 in the court of any municipality or territory where such train, aircraft, or other vehicle passed
during its trip, including the place of its departure and arrival.
‣ 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 voyage, subject to
the generally accepted principles of international law.
4. CASES BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN
‣ Where the case is cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, the jurisdiction of which depends upon the nature of the offense, and
the position of the accused, the offense need not be tried in the place where the act was committed but where the court
actually sits, which is in Quezon City.
5. LIBEL OR WRITTEN DEFAMATION (ART. 360, RPC)
‣ SEE — Bonifacio vs RTC of Makati (2010) and Agbayani vs Sayo