Miranda et al. v. Tuliao, G.R. No.

158763, March 31, 2006

Crim Pro - Jurisdiction
Facts:

On March 1996, two burnt cadavers were discovered in Ramon, Isabela which were later
identified as the bodies of Vicente Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao, son of the private respondent
Virgilio Tuliao who is now under the witness protection program.

Two Informations for murder were filed against 5 police officers including SPO2 Maderal
in the RTC of Santiago City. The venue was later transferred to the RTC of Manila. The RTC
convicted the accused and sentenced them two counts of reclusion perpetua except SPO2
Maderal who was yet to be arraigned at that time being at large. Upon automatic review, the
SC acquitted the accused on the ground of reasonable doubt.

In Sept. 1999, Maderal was arrested. He executed a sworn confession and identified the
petitioners as the ones responsible for the death of the victims, so, Tuliao filed a criminal
complaint for murder against the petitioners. Acting Presiding Judge Tumaliuan issued a
warrant of arrest against the petitioners and SPO2 Maderal.

Then, the petitioners filed an urgent motion to complete preliminary investigation, to

reinvestigate, and to recall or quash the warrant of arrest. In the hearing of the urgent motion,
Judge Tumaliuan noted the absence of the petitioners and issued a Joint order denying the
urgent motion on the ground that since the court did not acquire jurisdiction over their
persons, the motion cannot be properly heard by the court.

Issues: Whether or not an accused can seek judicial relief if he does not submit his person to
the jurisdiction of the court.

Whether or not a motion to quash a warrant of arrest requires jurisdiction over the person of
the accused.

Held. No, one who seeks affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the Jurisdiction of
the Court. Adjudication of a motion to quash a warrant of arrest requires neither jurisdiction
over the person of the accused, nor custody of law over the body of the accused.

Citing Santiago v. Vasquez, there is a distinction between the custody of the law and
jurisdiction over the person. Custody of the law is required before the Court can act upon the
application for bail, but is not required for the adjudication of other relief sought by the
dependant where by mere application, thereof, constitutes a waiver of the defence of lack of
jurisdiction over the person accused.

FIRST DIVISION
22. AAA v. BBB
G.R. No. 21244 January 11, 2018
DOCTRINE: RA. No. 9262 criminalizes is not the marital infidelity per se but the psychological
violence causing mental or emotional suffering on the wife. Otherwise stated, it is the violence
inflicted under the said circumstances that the law seeks to outlaw. Marital infidelity as cited in
the law is only one of the various acts by which psychological violence may be committed.
Moreover, depending on the circumstances of the spouses and for a myriad of reasons, the
illicit relationship may or may not even be causing mental or emotional anguish on the wife.
Thus, the mental or emotional suffering of the victim is an essential and distinct element in the
commission of the offense.
FACTS:
Petitioner AAA and BBB were married on August 1, 2006 in Quezon City. Their union produced
two children:

In May of 2007, BBB started working in Singapore as a chef, where he acquired permanent
resident status in September of 2008. This petition nonetheless indicates his address to be in
Quezon City where his parents reside and where AAA also resided from the time they were
married until March of 2010, when AAA and their children moved back to her parents' house in
Pasig City.7
AAA claimed, albeit not reflected in the Information, that BBB sent little to no financial support,
and only sporadically. This allegedly compelled her to fly extra hours and take on additional jobs
to augment her income as a flight attendant. There were also allegations of virtual
abandonment, mistreatment of her and their son CCC, and physical and sexual violence. To
make matters worse, BBB supposedly started having an affair with a Singaporean woman
named Lisel Mok with whom he allegedly has been living in Singapore. Things came to a head
on April 19, 2011 when AAA and BBB had a violent altercation at a hotel room in Singapore
during her visit with their kids.8 As can be gathered from the earlier cited Information, despite
the claims of varied forms of abuses, the investigating prosecutor found sufficient basis to
charge BBB with causing AAA mental and emotional anguish through his alleged marital
infidelity.9
The Information having been filed, a warrant of arrest was issued against BBB. AAA was also
able to secure a Hold-Departure Order against BBB who continued to evade the warrant of
arrest. Consequently, the case was archived.10
On November 6, 2013, an Entry of Appearance as Counsel for the Accused With Omnibus
Motion to Revive Case, Quash Information, Lift Hold Departure Order and Warrant of Arrest11
was filed on behalf of BBB. Granting the motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
and thereby dismissing the case, the trial court reasoned:
Here, while the Court maintains its 28 October 2011 ruling that probable cause exists in this
case and that [BBB] is probably guilty of the crime charged, considering, however, his
subsequent clear showing that the acts complained of him had occurred in Singapore, dismissal
of this case is proper since the Court enjoys no jurisdiction over the offense charged, it having
transpired outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
Aggrieved by the denial of the prosecution's motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the
case, AAA sought direct recourse to this Court via the instant petition on a pure question of law.
AAA posits that R.A. No. 9262 is in danger of becoming transmogrified into a weak, wobbly, and
worthless law because with the court a quo's ruling, it is as if husbands of Filipino women have
been given license to enter into extra-marital affairs without fear of any consequence, as long
as they are carried out abroad. In the main, AAA argues that mental and emotional anguish is
an essential element of the offense charged against BBB, which is experienced by her wherever
she goes, and not only in Singapore where the extra-marital affair takes place; thus, the RTC of
Pasig City where she resides can take cognizance of the case.
ISSUE: WON our court can assume jurisdiction where a psychological violence consisting of
marital infidelity punishable under RA No. 9262 is committed in a foreign land but the
psychological effect occured in the Philippines since the wife and the children of the
respondent, who suffered mental anguish, are residing in the Philippines.
RATIO: Yes, PH court have jurisdiction. Contrary to the interpretation of the RTC, what R.A. No.
9262 criminalizes is not the marital infidelity per se but the psychological violence causing
mental or emotional suffering on the wife. Otherwise stated, it is the violence inflicted under
the said circumstances that the law seeks to outlaw. Marital infidelity as cited in the law is only
one of the various acts by which psychological violence may be committed. Moreover,
depending on the circumstances of the spouses and for a myriad of reasons, the illicit
relationship may or may not even be causing mental or emotional anguish on the wife. Thus,
the mental or emotional suffering of the victim is an essential and distinct element in the
commission of the offense.

In criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional. Thus, in Trenas v. People,33 the Court explained
that:The place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action but
is an essential element of jurisdiction.1âwphi1 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. And 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.34 (Emphasis in the original)
In Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262, venue undoubtedly pertains to jurisdiction. As correctly pointed
out by AAA, Section 7 provides that the case may be filed where the crime or any of its
elements was committed at the option of the complainant. Which the psychological violence as
the means employed by the perpetrator is certainly an indispensable element of the offense,
equally essential also is the element of mental or emotional anguish which is personal to the
complainant. The resulting mental or emotional anguish is analogous to the indispensable
element of damage in a prosecution for estafa, viz:
What may be gleaned from Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262 is that the law contemplates that acts of
violence against women and their children may manifest as transitory or continuing crimes;
meaning that some acts material and essential thereto and requisite in their consummation
occur in one municipality or territory, while some occur in another. In such cases, 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. Thus, 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.36
It is necessary, for Philippine courts to have jurisdiction when the abusive conduct or act of
violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 in relation to Section 3(a), Paragraph (C) was
committed outside Philippine territory, that the victim be a resident of the place where the
complaint is filed in view of the anguish suffered being a material element of the offense. In the
present scenario, the offended wife and children of respondent husband are residents of Pasig
City since March of 2010. Hence, the RTC of Pasig City may exercise jurisdiction over the case.
Certainly, the act causing psychological violence which under the information relates to BBB's
marital infidelity must be proven by probable cause for the purpose of formally charging the
husband, and to establish the same beyond reasonable doubt for purposes of conviction. It
likewise remains imperative to acquire jurisdiction over the husband. What this case concerns
itself is simply whether or not a complaint for psychological abuse under R.A. No. 9262 may
even be filed within the Philippines if the illicit relationship is conducted abroad. We say that
even if the alleged extra-marital affair causing the offended wife mental and emotional anguish
is committed abroad, the same does not place a prosecution under R.A. No. 9262 absolutely
beyond the reach of Philippine courts.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated February 24,
2014 and May 2, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 158, in Criminal Case No.
146468 are SET ASIDE.Accordingly, the Information filed in Criminal Case No. 146468 is ordered
REINSTATED.

De Lima v. Guerrero
Posted on 4 months ago by Roxanne Peña Remedial Law
[G.R. No. 229781, October 10, 2017]
VELASCO, JR., J. EN BANC
FACTS: A petition was filed by De Lima to assail the issuance of a warrant of arrest against her
by Judge Juanita Guerrero of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa, Branch 204 in the criminal
case for Illegal Drug Trading filed by the government after the resolution of the preliminary
investigation conducted by the Department of Justice. Petitioner argues that, based on the
allegations of the Information, the Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction to try and hear the case
against her. Sandiganbayan has the exclusive jurisdiction to try the case considering that the
acts described in the Information were intimately related to her position as the Secretary of
Justice. Respondents, on the other hand, maintain that the RTC has exclusive jurisdiction to try
violations of RA 9165, including the acts described in the Information against the petitioner.
They contended that Sandiganbayan was specifically created as an anti-graft court, it was never
conferred with the power to try drug-related cases even those committed by public officials.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over violations of Republic Act No.
9165 committed by a public officer?

HELD: NO. RA 9165 specifies the RTC as the court with the jurisdiction to “exclusively try and
hear cases involving violations of [RA 9165).” This is an exception, couched in the special law on
dangerous drugs, to the general rule under Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as amended by RA 10660.
It is a canon of statutory construction that a special law prevails over a general law and the
latter is to be considered as an exception to the general.

Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as amended by RA 10660*, is the general law on jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan over crimes and offenses committed by high-ranking public officers in relation
to their office; Section 90 of RA 9165 is the special law excluding from the Sandiganbayan’s
jurisdiction violations of RA 9165 committed by such public officers. In the latter case,
jurisdiction is vested upon the RTCs designated by the Supreme Court as drugs court, regardless
of whether the violation of RA 9165 was committed in relation to the public officials’ office.

CASE BrieF NO. 2019-0040

“In criminal cases, venue or where at least one of the elements of the
crime or offense was committed must be proven and not just
alleged.”

CASE: Ruel Francis M. Cabral vs. Chris S. Bracamonte [G.R. No. 233174,
January 23, 2019]

PONENTE: Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:
1. REMEDIAL LAW:

i. Office of the Solicitor General – Authority to represent the State

ii. Territorial jurisdiction

iii. Jurisdiction over the subject matter

– How is it determined/ How is it conferred

– Barred by Laches

2. CRIMINAL LAW:

i. Estafa -Elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised
Penal Code.

FACTS: In 2009, Chris S. Bracamonte and Ruel Francis Cabral executed a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) in Makati City for the purchase of shares of stock in Wellcross Freight
Corporation (WFC) and Aviver International Corporation (AVIVER). Simultaneous with the
signing of the MOA, Bracamonte issued a postdated check to Cabral. When the check was
presented for payment, however, the drawee bank in Makati City dishonored the same for lack
of sufficient funds. Consequently, for failure to settle the obligation, Cabral instituted a
complaint for estafa against Bracamonte in Parañaque City. Finding probable cause, the
prosecutor filed an Information with the RTC of Parañaque City.

After arraignment and presentation of prosecution evidence, Bracamonte moved to quash the
Information contending that the venue was improperly laid in Parañaque City, because the
postdated check was delivered and dishonored in Makati City. Thus, the prosecution failed to
show how the supposed elements of the crime charged were committed in Parañaque City. In
contrast, Cabral maintained that the averments in the complaint and Information are
controlling to determine jurisdiction. Since the complaint affidavit alleged that negotiations on
the MOA were conducted in a warehouse in Parañaque City where Cabral was convinced to sell
his shares in the two corporations, then the RTC of Parañaque City properly had jurisdiction.
Moreover, Cabral contented that Bracamonte’s motion should be considered barred by laches
as it took him four (4) years before he raised the issue of jurisdiction, actively participating in
the proceedings by cross examining the prosecution witness.

The RTC denied the Motion to Quash explaining that it has jurisdiction over the case because
Bracamonte employed fraudulent acts against Cabral in Parañaque City prior to the issuance of
the postdated check. According to the trial court, based on the complaint affidavit, Cabral
narrated that it was during their meeting in the old warehouse of AVIVER and WFC in
Parañaque City that Bracamonte was able to persuade and convince him to sell his entire
shares of stock. There, they triumphed in misleading and fooling him until he finally accepted
their offer. Thus, since the complaint affidavit and the Information in the instant case duly
alleged that Bracamonte deceived Cabral in Parañaque City, the Parañaque RTC appropriately
had jurisdiction over the instant case.

In an appeal, however, the CA set aside the RTC Order and dismissed the Information against
Bracamonte. Cabral moved for Motion for Reconsideration but it was denied by the CA.

Aggrieved by the CA’s denial of his Motion for Reconsideration, Cabral filed a Petition for
Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court with the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

A. Whether Cabral, a private complainant in a criminal case has the authority to file
appeal in CA and SC?

a. Who has the authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases
before the Supreme Court and the CA? Are there any exceptions?

B. Whether the RTC Parañaque City has jurisdiction over the estafa case filed by Cabral.

a. What is territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases?

b. How is jurisdiction over the criminal case determined?

c. What are the elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the
Revised Penal Code?

C. Whether Bracamonte’s motion should be considered barred by laches.

RULING:

A. In criminal cases, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case against him can
only be appealed by the Solicitor General, acting on behalf of the State.

Here, Cabral filed the present petition without the participation of the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG). Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code
explicitly provides that the OSG shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies
and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or
matter requiring the services of lawyers. It shall have specific powers and functions to represent
the Government and its officers in the Supreme Court and the CA, and all other courts or
tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government or any officer
thereof in his official capacity is a party. The OSG is the law office of the Government.
Thus, in criminal cases, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case against him can
only be appealed by the Solicitor General, acting on behalf of the State. The private
complainant or the offended party may question such acquittal or dismissal only insofar as the
civil liability of the accused is concerned [Chiok v. People, 774 Phil. 230, 245, (2015)].

The rationale behind is that, the party affected by the dismissal of the criminal action is the
State and not the private complainant. The interest of the private complainant or the private
offended party is limited only to the civil liability. In the prosecution of the offense, the
complainant’s role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution.

There have been instances, however, where the Court permitted an offended party to file an
appeal without the intervention of the OSG, such as when the offended party questions the civil
aspect of a decision of a lower court, when there is denial of due process of law to the
prosecution and the State or its agents refuse to act on the case to the prejudice of the State
and the private offended party, when there is grave error committed by the judge, or when the
interest of substantial justice so requires [Morillo v. People, et al., 775 Phil. 192, 210-211
(2015)].

In the instant case, however, the petition before the Court essentially assails the criminal, and
not only the civil, aspect of the CA Decision. Thus, the petition should have been filed only by
the State through the OSG and not by Cabral who lacked the personality or legal standing to
question the CA Decision.

B. Nevertheless, even assuming the procedural propriety of the instant petition, the Court
still resolves to deny the same. Time and again, the Court has held that “territorial jurisdiction
in criminal cases is the territory where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of or to try
the offense allegedly committed therein by the accused. In all criminal prosecutions, the action
shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory wherein the offense was
committed or where any one of the essential ingredients took place.” [Brodeth v. People, G.R.
No. 197849, November 29, 2017].

Moreover, it has been held that 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 [Treñas v. People, 680 Phil. 368, 380 (2012)].

Here, the crime allegedly committed by Bracamonte is estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d)
of the Revised Penal Code. The elements of such crime consists of the following: (1) the
offender has postdated or issued a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of
the postdating or issuance; (2) at the time of postdating or issuance of said check, the offender
has no funds in the bank or the funds deposited are not sufficient to cover the amount of the
check; and (3) the payee has been defrauded.
 In the present petition, Cabral vehemently insists that since he alleged in his complaint affidavit
that the business transactions with regard to the terms and conditions of the subject MOA were
conducted in a warehouse in Parañaque City, the element of deceit definitely occurred therein,
and as such, the RTC of Parañaque City has jurisdiction over the case. The Court, however,
cannot subscribe to said contention.

It was merely stated in the Information, and alleged by Cabral in his complaint affidavit, that the
crime of estafa was committed in Parañaque City because it was there that he was convinced to
sell the subject shares of stock. Apart from said allegation, however, he did not present any
evidence, testimonial or documentary, that would support or corroborate the assertion.

On the contrary, and as the appellate court pointed out, what were actually proven by the
evidence on record are the following: (1) Cabral and Bracamonte executed a MOA in Makati
City; (2) Bracamonte issued and delivered a postdated check in Makati City simultaneous to the
signing of the agreement; (3) the check was presented for payment and was subsequently
dishonored in Makati City. As such, the Court does not see why Cabral did not file the complaint
before the Makati City trial court. Not only were the MOA and subject check executed,
delivered, and dishonored in Makati City, it was even expressly stipulated in their agreement
that the parties chose Makati City as venue for any action arising from the MOA because that
was where it was executed. It is clear from the foregoing that the element of deceit took place
in Makati City where the worthless check was issued and delivered, while the damage was
inflicted also in Makati City where the check was dishonored by the drawee bank.

While Cabral is not wrong in saying that the crime of estafa is a continuing or transitory offense
and may be prosecuted at the place where any of the essential ingredients of the crime took
place, the pieces of evidence on record point only to one place: Makati City. Time and again,
the Court has ruled that “in criminal cases, venue or where at least one of the elements of the
crime or offense was committed must be proven and not just alleged. Otherwise, a mere
allegation is not proof and could not justify sentencing a man to jail or holding him criminally
liable. To stress, an allegation is not evidence and could not be made equivalent to proof.”There
being no showing that the offense was committed within Parañaque City, the RTC of that city
has no jurisdiction over the case.

C. As to Cabral’s contention that Bracamonte’s motion should be considered barred by

laches as it took him four (4) years before he raised the issue of jurisdiction, actively
participating in the proceedings by cross examining the prosecution witness, the rule is settled
that an objection based on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the offense charged
may be raised or considered motu proprio by the court at any stage of the proceedings or on
appeal. Moreover, jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal case cannot be conferred
upon the court by the accused, by express waiver or otherwise, since such jurisdiction is
conferred by the sovereign authority which organized the court, and is given only by law in the
manner and form prescribed by law [Fukuzume v. People 511 Phil. 192 (2005)].
Navaja v. De Castro, G.R. No. 182926
G.R. No. 182926 June 22, 2015

ANA LOU B. NAVAJA, Petitioner,vs.

HON. MANUEL A. DE CASTRO, or the Acting Presiding Judge of MCTC
Jagna-Garcia-Hernandez, DKT PHILS., INC., represented by ATTY.
EDGAR BORJE, Respondents
Facts:

The instant case arose from a Complaint-Affidavit filed by private respondent DKT Philippines,
Inc., represented by Atty. Edgar Borje, against petitioner Ana Lou B. Navaja, alleging that while
she was still its Regional Sales Manager, she falsified a receipt by making it appear that she
incurred meal expenses in the amount of ₱1,810.00, instead of the actual amount of ₱810.00,
at Garden Cafe, Jagna, Bohol, and claimed reimbursement for it.

Navaja is charged with the crime of falsification of private document before the Municipal
Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Jagna-Garcia-Hernandez, Bohol, docketed as Criminal Case No.
2904. The accusatory portion of the Information filed against her reads:

That on or about the 2nd day of October 2003, in the municipality of Jagna, province of Bohol,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with
intent to prejudice a juridical person, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
falsify a commercial receipt No. 6729 of Garden Cafe, Jagna, Bohol, by making an alteration or
intercalation in the said receipt No. 6729 from EIGHT HUNDRED TEN PESOS (₱810.00) to ONE
THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TEN PESOS (₱1,810.00) and thereafter accused used the said
receipt to claim reimbursement with DKT Philippines, Inc. represented by Atty. Edgar Borje and
accused as a result of which received the amount of 1,810.00 to her own benefit; to the
damage and prejudice of the offended party in the amount to be proved during trial. Acts
committed contrary to the provision of Article 172, No. 2, in relation to Article 171, No. 6 of the
Revised Penal Code.

Navaja filed a motion for reconsideration of the November 2, 2005 Order, but the MCTC denied
it in a Resolution7 dated January 24, 2006. Navaja filed a petition for certiorari8 before the RTC,
assailing the November 2, 2005 Order and January 24, 2006 Resolution of the MCTC for having
been issued with grave abuse of discretion.
On September 21, 2006, the RTC issued an Order denying the petition for certiorari for lack of
legal basis or merit. Navaja elevated the case on appeal with the CA. In the Decision dated
August 28, 2007, the CA dismissed Navaja’s appeal and affirmed in toto the September 21, 2006
RTC Order.
Issue:

WON THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF JAGNA, BOHOL DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER
THE INSTANT CRIMINAL CASE.

YES, the Municipal Trial Court of Jagna, Bohol have jurisdiction over the case. Venue in criminal
cases is an essential element of jurisdiction. This principle was explained by the Court in Foz, Jr.
v. People, thus:

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 took 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. And
once it is so shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case. However, if the evidence
adduced during the trial show that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court
should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.15

In determining the venue where the criminal action is to be instituted and the court which has
jurisdiction over it, Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
provides:

(a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court or
municipality or territory where the offense was committed or where any of its essential
ingredients occurred.

Section 10, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure pertinently states:

Place of commission of the offense. – The complaint or information is sufficient if it can be

understood from its allegations that the offense was committed or some of its essential
ingredients occurred at some 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.

Furthermore, in Union Bank of the Philippines v. People, the Court said that both provisions
categorically place the venue and jurisdiction over criminal cases not only in the court where
the offense was committed, but also where any of its essential ingredients took place. In other
words, the venue of action and of jurisdiction are deemed sufficiently alleged where the
Information states that the offense was committed or some of its essential ingredients occurred
at a place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

In cases of falsification of private documents, the venue is the place where the document is
actually falsified, to the prejudice of or with the intent to prejudice a third person, regardless
whether or not the falsified document is put to the improper or illegal use for which it was
intended.

(ADHERENCE OF JURISDICTION)
UY VS CA
GR NO 119000 July 28, 1997
FACTS:
Rosa Uy was employed as an accountant in Don Tim Shipping Company owned by the husband
of complaining witness Consolacion Leong. During Rosa's employment she was regarded by the
Leongs as an efficient and hardworking employee. On 15 March 1982, a few months before she
was to give birth, Rosa resigned. In the meantime, she helped her husband manage their
lumber business. The friendly relations between Rosa and Consolacion continued. The two later
agreed to form a partnership with Consolacion to contribute additional capital for the
expansion of Rosa's lumber business and the latter as industrial partner. Various sums of money
amounting to P500,000.00 were claimed to have been given by Consolacion for the business;
however, because of the trust they had for each other, no receipt was ever issued.
Thereafter a lumber store with warehouse was constructed in Bulacan, Bulacan, with the funds
contributed by Consolacion evidence by various receipts. But, unfortunately, the friendship
between Consolacion and Rosa turned sour when the partnership documents were never
processed. As a result, Consolacion asked for the return of her investment but the checks issued
by Rosa for the purpose were dishonored for insufficiency of funds.
The preceding events prompted Consolacion to file a complaint for estafa and for violation of
the Bouncing Checks Law before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
After a joint trial, the Manila Regional Trial Court acquitted petitioner of estafa but convicted
her of the charges under B.P. Bldg. 22. 5 On appeal, respondent appellate court affirmed the
decision of the trial court.

ISSUE:
WON RTC of Manila acquired jurisdiction over the violations of the Bouncing Checks Law

HELD:
NO, it has not. There is no scintilla of evidence to show that jurisdiction over the violation of
B.P. Blg. 22 had been acquired. On the contrary, all that the evidence shows is that complainant
is a resident of Makati; that petitioner is a resident of Caloocan City; that the principal place of
business of the alleged partnership is located in Malabon; that the drawee bank is likewise
located in Malabon and that all the subject checks were deposited for collection in Makati.
Verily, no proof has been offered that the checks were issued, delivered, dishonored or
knowledge of insufficiency of funds occurred in Manila, which are essential elements necessary
for the Manila Court to acquire jurisdiction over the offense.