CASE NO 12

CASE NAME Raul Francis Cabral v. Chris Bracamonte, G.R. No. 233174, January 23, 2019.
PONENTE PERALTA, J.
TOPIC Venue in Criminal Cases
DOCTRINE 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.

FACTS
 Chris S. Bracamonte (respondent) and Ruel Cabral (petitioner) executed as MOA in Makati City for the purchase of
share of stocks in Wellcross Freight Corporation and Aviver International Co. Simultaneously, upon signing the MOA
respondent issued a postdated checks (PDC). When the check was presented for payment, the drawee bank of Makati
dishonored it for insufficient funds. Thus, petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent for the crime of estafa in
the RTC of Parañaque City.

 After presentation of evidence, respondent contended that there was an improper venue the PDC 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.

 The petitioner insisted, since the negotiation on the MOA was conducted in a ware in Parañaque City, where petitioner
was convinced to sell his share in the two corporations, then the RTC of Parañaque City should have the jurisdiction.

 RTC of Parañaque denied the Motion to Quash. Ratio: it has jurisdiction, for the fraudulent acts of estafa was done in
Parañaque City prior to the issuance of the PDC. The RTC solely based their ruling on the complaint affidavit stating
that, “Cabral narrated that it was during the meeting in the old warehouse in Parañaque City that Bracamonte was able
to persuade and convince him to sell his entire share of stock”

 CA set aside the decision of the RTC and dismissed the information.

ISSUE
W/N RTC of Parañaque City territorial jurisdiction or proper venue of this criminal case? - NO. RTC of Makati City

RULING
According to the SC, 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." The place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action
but is an essential element of jurisdiction.. Thus, a court cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense
allegedly committed outside of its limited territory.

In this relation, 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.
In this case, Bracamonte, the respondent, committed the crime of estafa under the Art. 315 par. 2 of the RPC. The of this
crime are the ff:
(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.

It is the not non-payment of the debt is punishable, but the act of fraud and deceit in the issuance of check/s. Deceit has been
defined as “the false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or conduct by false or misleading allegations or by
concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act
upon it to his legal injury.”

Here, Cabral insisted in his complaint affidavit that the business transaction, with regard to the terms and conditions of the
MOA, were constituted in the old warehouse in Parañaque City, and that the element of deceit occurred therein. Thus, RTC
of Parañaque City has the jurisdiction of the said case.

This argument is bereft of merit.

In Fukuzume v. People, it was discussed that “Reliance by a court to mere sworn statements executed with regard to venue
of the crime, and presented no other evidence, testimonial or documentary, to corroborate to that sworn statement or to
prove that any of the enumerated elements of the offense charged was committed in that municipality, then such ruling of
that court should be set aside for want of jurisdiction, without prejudice, however, to the filing of appropriate charges with
the court of competent jurisdiction.”

In other words, 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.

Here, it was merely stated in the Information, and alleged by the petitioner 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.

The CA was able to point out, by the evidence of record that the crime was committed in Makati. To wit:
(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 SC does not see why petitioner 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, therefore, clear from the foregoing that the element of deceit took place in Makati City where the
worthless check was issued and delivered.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. CA decision is AFFIRMED.