VENUE/JURISDICTION

Case 1 Agustin v. Pamintuan

Facts:

Petitioner Victor Agustin was charged with 4 separate Informations of libel by the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Baguio. He was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty to all the charges.

On September 10, 2001, he then filed a Motion to Quash the Informations on the sole ground that the
court had no jurisdiction over the offenses charged. He pointed out that the said Informations did not
contain any allegation that the offended party was actually residing in Baguio City or that the alleged
libelous articles were printed and first published in a newspaper of general circulation in Baguio City.

Private complainant opposed the motion alleging that he was a bona fide resident and acting general
manager of Baguio Country Club. The RTC issued an order denying the MTQ and the motion for
reconsideration of the Order. Petitioner then brought the case to the CA.

The CA rendered a decision dismissing the petition and the motion for reconsideration of the decision for
lack of merit. Thus, petitioner filed a motion for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court.

The petitioner contented that in the absence of any allegations in the Informations that the private
respondent was actually residing in Baguio City, or that the alleged libelous articles were printed and first
published in Baguio as mandated by Article 360 of the RPC, the trial court had no jurisdiction over the
offenses charged. He asserted that the amendments of the Informations would be improper, considering
that the defects of the Informations were not of form but of substance.

The OSG maintained that the failure of the Informations to allege that the private respondent is a resident
of Baguio City is not a jurisdictional defect. It asserted that the averment in the Informations that the
crimes charged were committed within the jurisdiction of the trial court in Baguio City, taken in conjunction
1 with the other allegations therein are sufficient to vest jurisdiction over the subject cases in the RTC of
Baguio City.

Issue: Whether the RTC of Baguio City has jurisdiction over the offenses charged in the four
Informations.

Ruling: The SC granted the petition, holding that the RTC of Baguio has no jurisdiction. The SC held that
venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a court over the criminal
case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or Information, and the offense must have been
committed or any of its essential ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Article
360 of the RPC provides that the criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations,
shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the
libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the
time of the commission of the offense. In the case at bar, the Informations did not allege that the offended
party was actually residing in Baguio City at the time of the commission of the offenses, or that the alleged
libelous articles were printed and first published in Baguio City. It cannot even be inferred from the
allegation 'the offended party was the Acting General Manager of the Baguio Country Club and of good
standing and reputation in the community that the private complainant was actually residing in Baguio
City.

Case 2 Macasaet v. People

Facts:
Petitioners were charged with the crime of libel before the RTC of Quezon City. Petitioners filed a Motion
to Dismiss the libel case on the ground that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the offense
charged.

According to petitioners, as the information discloses that the residence of private respondent was in
Marikina, the RTC of Quezon City did not have jurisdiction over the case pursuant to Article 360 of the
RPC. The public prosecutor argued that the RTC of QC had jurisdiction over the case. He maintained that
during the time material to this case, the complainant was a resident of both QC and Marikina as shown in
his Reply-Affidavit filed during his preliminary investigation of the case.

The petitioners contended that the complaint-affidavit executed by complainant and the information filed
before the court state that complainants residence is in Marikina, thus the dismissal of the case is
warranted for the rule is that jurisdiction is determined solely by the allegations contained in the complaint
or information.

The trial court rendered an Order dismissing the case due to lack of jurisdiction and it held that the
editorial box of Abante is in Manila and that the address of complainant is in Marikina as provided in the
information. The complainant then filed a motion for reconsideration insisting that at the time the alleged
libelous article was published, he was actually residing in QC.

According to him, he mistakenly stated that he was a resident of Marikina at the time of publication but he
rectified the error by his supplemental affidavit which indicated QC as his actual residence at the time of
publication of the defamatory article. However, the motion for reconsideration was denied. Respondents
file a notice of appeal to the Court of appeals. The CA reversed and set aside the ruling of the RTC.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the CA, hence this petition before the
Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether the RTC of QC had jurisdiction.

Ruling:

The RTC of QC had no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held 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.

In libel cases, the criminal action and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations as provided
for in this chapter, shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the Court of First Instance of the
province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended
parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense.

In the case at bar, private respondent was a private citizen at the time of the publication of the alleged
libelous article, hence, he could only file his libel suit in the City of Manila where Abante was first
published or in the province or city where he actually resided at the time the purported libelous article was
printed.

A perusal, however, of the information involved in this case easily reveals that the allegations contained
therein are utterly insufficient to vest jurisdiction on the RTC of Quezon City. Other than perfunctorily
stating Quezon City at the beginning of the information, the assistant city prosecutor who prepared the
information did not bother to indicate whether the jurisdiction of RTC Quezon City was invoked either
because Abante was printed in that place or private respondent was a resident of said city at the time the
claimed libelous article came out.
As these matters deal with the fundamental issue of the courts jurisdiction, Article 360 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, mandates that either one of these statements must be alleged in the
information itself and the absence of both from the very face of the information renders the latter fatally
defective. Sadly for private respondent, the information filed before the trial court falls way short of this
requirement. The assistant city prosecutors failure to properly lay the basis for invoking the jurisdiction of
the RTC, Quezon City, effectively denied said court of the power to take cognizance of this case.

Case 3 Campamano vs Datuin

Facts:

Seishin International Corporation, represented by its president-herein petitioner David B. Campanano, Jr.
filed against respondent. An Information for violation ofB.P. Blg. 22. respondent was convicted of Estafa
by the Regional Trial Court, of Pasig City by Decision of May 3, 1999.

Meanwhile, sometime in July 15, 2003when he vacated his office, found the cash voucher evidencing his
cash payment of the two (2) road rollers, Sakai brand, which he purchased from Mr. Yasonobu Hirota,
representing Seishin International Corporation, in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand (P200,000.00)
Pesos. The cash voucher was dated June 28, 1993, and it was signed by respondent and Mr. Hirota.

Claiming that the complaint of Seishin International Corporation against him was false, unfounded and
malicious respondent filed a complaint for Incriminating Against Innocent Persons, before the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Quezon city against petitioner and a certain Yasunobu Hirota.

In filing the complaint for Estafa - fully knowing that it was baseless and without factual or legal basis,
according to respondent Mr. Campanano, Jr. and Mr. Hirota should be criminally liable for the crime of
Incriminating Innocent Persons punishable under Article 363 of the Revised Penal Code. By Resolution of
January 20, 2004, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City dismissed respondent's complaint for
incriminating innocent person It appearing that the case of estafa was filed in Pasig City , and the
testimony given by respondent David Campano, Jr. was also made in Pasig City , this office has no
jurisdiction on the above-entitled complainant.

Issue: Whether the City prosecutor of Quezon City has jurisdiction over the complaint filed by the
respondent.

Held:

It is doctrinal that in criminal cases, venue is an essential element of jurisdiction; and that the jurisdiction
of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information.

The complaint-affidavit for incriminating innocent person filed by respondent with the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Quezon City on August 28, 2003 does not allege that the crime charged or any of its
essential ingredients was committed in Quezon City . The only reference to Quezon City in the complaint-
affidavit is that it is where respondent resides.

Respondent's complaint-affidavit was thus properly dismissed by the City Prosecutor of Quezon City for
lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals' conclusion-basis of its reversal of the DOJ Resolutions that
since petitioner's November 20, 2003 CounterAffidavit to respondent's complaint for incriminating innocent
person was executed in Quezon City, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City had acquired
jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation of the case is thus erroneous.

In any event, the allegations in the complaint-affidavit do not make out a clear probable cause of
incriminating innocent person under Article 363 of the Revised Penal Code. The petition is Granted. The
Court of Appeals Decision of December 9, 2005 is Reversed and set aside. The complaint of respondent
for Incriminating Innocent Person filed against petitioner David Campamano, Jr. is Dismissed
Complaint/Information.
Case 4: Reodica v CA 292 SCRA 87

Facts:

Isabelita Reodica was allegedly recklessly driving a van and hit Bonsol causing him physical injuries and
damage to property amounting to P 8,542.00. Three days after the accident a complaint was filed before
the fiscals office against the petitioner. She was charged of "Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage
to Property with Slight Physical Injury." After pleading not guilty trial ensued. RTC of Makati rendered the
decision convicting petitioner of "quasi offense of reckless imprudence, resulting in damage to property
with slight physical injuries" with arresto mayor of 6 months imprisonment and a fine of P 13,542.00.
Petitioner made an appeal before the CA which re-affirmed the lower courts decision. In its motion for
reconsideration, petitioner now assails that

1. the court erred in giving its penalty on complex damage to property and slight physical
injuries both being light offenses over which the RTC has no jurisdiction and it cant impose
penalty in excess to what the law authorizes.

2. reversal of decision is still possible on ground of prescription or lack of jurisdiction.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the penalty imposed is correct.

2. Whether or not reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property and reckless imprudence
resulting to slight physical injuries are light felonies.
3. Whether or not there is a complex crime applying Article 48 of the RPC.
4. Whether or not the duplicity of the information may be questioned for the first time on appeal.
5. Whether or not the RTC of Makati has jurisdiction over the case.
6. Whether the quasi offenses already prescribed.

Held:
1. On penalty imposed

The proper penalty for reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical injury is public censure (being the
penalty next lower in degree to arresto menor see the exception in the sixth paragraph of Article 365
applies).

The proper penalty for reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property amounting to 8,542.00 would
be arresto mayor in minimum and medium periods.

2. Classification of each felony involved

Reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical injuries is a light felony. Public censure is classified under
article 25 of RPC as a light penalty and it belongs on the graduated scale in Article 71 of the RPC as a
penalty next lower to arresto menor.

Reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property is punishable by a correctional penalty of arresto

mayor and thus belongs to less grave felony and not as a light felony as claimed by petitioner.

3. Rule on complex crime

Art. 48 on penalty for complex crime provides that when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less
grave felonies, or when an offense is necessary a means for committing the other, the penalty for the
most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period. Both offenses cannot
constitute a complex crime because reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical injuries is not either a
grave or less grave felony. Therefore each felony should be filed as a separate complaint subject to
distinct penalties.
 4. Right to assail duplicity of information

Rule 120, section 3 of the Rules of Court provides that when two or more offenses are charged in a single
complaint and the accused fails to object against it before the trial, the court may convict the accuse to as
many offenses as charged and impose a penalty for each of them. Complainant failed to make the
objection before the trial therefore the right to object has been waived.

5. Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction of the court is determined by the duration of the penalty and the fine imposed as prescribed by
law to the offense charged. Reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical injuries and reckless
imprudence resulting to damage to property is within the jurisdiction of the MTC.

The case was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction of the RTC of Makati and the decision of the CA was
set aside.

Balitaan v. Court of First Instance of Batangas

Summary: Accused was charge with the crime of estafa through misappropriation. Accused
moved to strike out the complaining witnesss testimony because it was at variance with the
allegation in the Information.

Doctrine: Every element of which the offense is composed must be alleged in the complaint or
information. What facts and circumstances are necessary to be stated must be determined by
reference to the definition and essentials of the specific crimes.

Facts: Counsel for the plaintiff (Balitaan) filed an Information charging respondent Rita de los Reyes of
the crime of estafa. It was alleged that defendant failed to account for and deliver the amount of 127.58
to the plaintiff. This sum is in payment of work done on baby dresses by Balitaan. Furthermore, the
Information stated that it was committed with unfaithfulness and grave abuse of confidence.

During the testimony of plaintiff, the defense presented a motion to strike out all the
testimonies of the witness as far as Exhibit A was concerned (consisted of three checks and a
voucher) because there said testimony was at variance in the information and there is no
allegation in the information regarding these checks and cash voucher. The Information only
showed the sum of 127.58 that was received by the defendant. The objection of the counsel of
defendant was overruled.

Consequently, the defendant instituted against Balitaan an action for the annulment of
the orders of the municipal court, overruling the objections of the defendant to the testimony of
complaining witness on the grounds of immateriality and variance with the Information. The court
in this case, favored the defendant.

From this decision, plaintiff Balitaan filed a petition for review.

Issues

1. W/N there is a variance between the allegation in the Information for estafa and the proof
established by the petitioners testimony
2. W/N the testimonies of the complaining witness prove the same or tend to prove estafa that is
different from the one alleged in the Information (Information alleges estafa under par 1(b) of
Art. 315)
Ratio

1. None, there is no variance. The three checks and voucher need not be alleged in the
Information. They did not vary the allegation in the Information that respondent Rita de los Reyes
misappropriated the amount of 127.58. Proof of the checks was a material evidence of fact that
respondent misappropriated the amount which was a part of the total sum of the checks.

Every element of which the offense is composed must be alleged in the Information. This is
to enable the accused to prepare his defense. As a general rule, matters of evidence need not be
averred.

All that is required is that the charge be set forth with particularity as will indicate the offense
which the accused as alleged to have committed.

2. The testimony tends to prove what is alleged in the Information. Presentation of proof of
deceit in a prosecution for estafa under par. 1(b) is

allowed. Abuse of confidence and deceit may co-exist. The questioned testimony eliciting the fact
that the accused falsely represented the

amount of 127.58 is not at variance with the allegations in the Information. The presence of
deceit did not change the theory of prosecution that estafa with abuse of confidence was
committed.

People v Molero

NATURE

Appeal from decision of CFI

FACTS

- Molero was charged with rape by daughter in complaint filed in CFI Negros Oriental.

Molero told daughter to go with him to the river to catch shrimps and fish. She was barely 17. She was
hugged fr behind by Molero and she fell to the ground. He unsheathed his bolo. He succeeded in
having sexual intercourse and warned her not to tell anyone.

- The mother learned of the incident and told daughter to keep quiet for the moment; they were secretive
of their plan to report because Molero is a fierce man.

- Mother and daughter went to Station Commander. They were advised to report to the PC Headquarters.
At the PC Headquarters, complaint was investigated, but accused didnt want investigation to continue
because accdg to him, this was their own problem.

- Internal and external exam of victim showed she had previous sexual intercourse.

- Molero denied the charge, saying he couldnt have done it because he was already committed in the
provincial jail that time. He also denied the sworn statement he made, saying hes illiterate. He said he
was not informed of his rights to remain silent and to counsel; that he was not assisted by counsel during
investigation.

- Moleros alibi was readily refuted.

- Trial court found Molero guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape.

- A double jeopardy issue arose because there were two complaints filed:

- filed March 22, 1977: rape was committed Feb 13, 1976

- filed March 30, 1978: rape was committed Feb 5, 1976

- Molero was arraigned under the first complaint, he pleaded not guilty. - During trial, the provincial fiscal
filed motion for leave to amend the complaint. This was granted. Thus, the new complaint.

- Molero filed motion to quash 2nd criminal complaint on ground of double jeopardy. This was denied.

ISSUES

1. WON Molero was under double jeopardy

2. WON Molero committed the rape

HELD

1. NO

- Section 9, Rule 117 of 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure: Conviction or acquittal of the defendant or
the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged

- Here, the case was not terminated because the dispositive portion of the order expressly directed the
Provincial Fiscal and/or prosecuting fiscal to file a new complaint and/or information.

- The case was dismissed for no other reason except to correct the date of the crime.

- This dismissal did not amount to an acquittal.

- There was no need for trial court to have used such procedure. It should just have denied motion for
reconsideration of the order granting the prosecutions motion for leave to amend the complaint.

After arraignment and where appellant pleaded not guilty, is it still proper to amend date of commission of
crime? Applying Sections 10 and 13 of Rule 110 of Revised Rules of Court, amendment sought by
prosecution should have been granted. The precise time is not an essential element of rape. The
amendment was only a matter of form and did not prejudice the rights of the appellant.

2. YES

- Molero argues that if a crime was committed by him at all, it was qualified seduction.

- SC didnt agree. Appellant was shown to have employed force and intimidation against daughter. Also,
he had moral ascendancy and influence over the victim. The victim is illiterate and unschooled, and
Molero threatened her with a bolo and rendered her practically helpless.

REPUBLIC VS. SUNGA

SUMMARY: Petition for review on certiorari filed by the provincial fiscal seeking clarification on
whether or not a criminal case can be dismissed by the trial court on the basis of an affidavit of
desistance executed by the offended party but without motion to dismiss filed by the prosecuting
fiscal. Court held that while the trial court is the sole judge on whether a criminal case should be
dismissed, the fiscals view on the matter should be heard by said court first before making such
decision of dismissal.

DOCTRINE: Court held that while the trial court is the sole judge on whether a criminal case should be
dismissed, the fiscals view on the matter should be heard by said court first before making such
decision of dismissal

FACTS:

- August 10, 1964: information for attempted homicide was filed by fiscal of Camarines sur against
accused-private respondents Rafael, Ariston and Jose all surnamed Anadilla.

- March 11, 1974: hearing was set but was postponed because Rafael Anadilla was absent (he
wasnt arrested yet by police).

Court a quo issued an order of arrest for Rafael and also set the trial of the case for 29 and 30 July
1974

- March 20, 1974: court a quo issued assailed order which contains the ff. points:

o The offended party is no longer interested in further prosecution of the case

o The case is dimissed
- The affidavit of desistance filed by offended party stated that he was no longer interested in the
prosecution of the case, he has already forgiven the accused and that his material witnesses
could no longer be contacted

- Provincial fiscal moved to reconsider the order of dismissal but was denied. Hence this
petition.

ISSUE: WON the court a quo may dismiss a criminal case on the basis of an affidavit of desistance
executed by the offended party, but without a motion to dismiss filed by the prosecuting fiscal.

HELD: Petition is dismissed

RATIO:

- Yes but court should always ask the opinion of the fiscal first.

- In Crespo v. Mogul, it was held that the rule is that once a complaint or information is filed in
court, any disposition of the case rests in the sound
discretion of the court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of
criminal cases even while the case is already in court, he cannot impose his opinion on the trial
court. The court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it.

- In the case at bar, it took 10 years from the filing of the information for the trial to begin.
Hence the disposition of the complainant is not unusual.

Despite this, the fact that the fiscal opposed said dismissal of the case seems to imply that
he believe that despite such manifestation of the complaint, he could prove the
prosecutions case.

- Through crespo doctrine still is true (trial court is sole judge on whether a crim case should be
dismissed), any move on the part of complainant to dismiss the criminal case, even without
the objection of the accused, should first be referred to the prosecuting fiscal for his own
 view on the matter. It is only after hearing the prosecuting fiscals view that the court
should exercise its exclusive authority to continue or dismiss the case.

PEOPLE VS. OCAPAN

FACTS:

Accused-appellant Dick Ocapan and Joselyn Ocapan, the woman who lived with him in an ostensible
marital relationship, were charged on March 11, 1985 before the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Norte
at Iligan City with the complex crime of rape with serious illegal detention. The case against Joselyn
Ocapan was dismissed while Dick Ocapan was convicted and sentenced accordingly for the crime of
serious illegal detention. The decision of the trial court was appealed to the Court of Appeals which
elevated its decision to this Court for final determination in accordance with Section 13 of Rule 124 of the
Rules of Court. INFORMATION: 'That on or about January 17, 1985, in the City of Iligan, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Dick Ocapan conspiring and confederating with his
common-law wife, Joselyn O. Ocapan, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously and by
means of force and intimidation have carnal knowledge with one Arlene Yupo, a minor and who was
working as househelper, of the said accused; that thereafter, in order to prevent the said Arlene Yupo
from reporting to the proper authorities, detained and deprived her of her liberty for more than five (5)
days.' "On October 7, 1985 the trial court rendered judgment dismissing the rape charge on the ground
that the offended party had not filed a complaint, but finding the accused- appellant guilty of serious illegal
detention. - Prosecution failed to present a signed complaint of the offended party.

ISSUE: WON the TC did not acquire jurisdiction as the offended party did not file a complaint (of rape) for
this crime.

HELD: NO JURISDICTION, correctly dismissed by the Trial Court.

RATIO:

VALDEPENAS VS. PEOPLE: the filing of a complaint for rape or for any other offense enumerated in Art.
344 of the Revised Penal Code by the person or persons mentioned therein is jurisdictional.