CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WEEK 3

Aleezah Gertrude Regado

D. AMENDMENTS/ SUBSTITUTION –Sec. 14, Rule 110 - The amendment only repladced “John Doe”  Buhat : It was simply an amendment
to insert the real name of the accused
BUHAT V. CA
“Abuse of superior strength having already been alleged in the original information
Facts: charging homicide, the amendment of the name of crime of murder constitutes mere
formal amendment permissible even after the arraignment
(1) 1993, an information of HOMICIDE was filed in the RTC against Buhat, “John Dooe”
1. The main consideration: WON the accused had already made his plea under the original
and “Richard Doe”.
information for this is the index of prejudice and violation of the rights of the accused.
(2) The information alleged –On Oct 1992, petitioner Buhat, armed with a knife unlawfully
2. If killing is characterized as having been committed by superior strength then there is
attacked and killed George Yu while the said two unknown assailants held his arms using
murder
superior strength, inflicting mortal wounds which were the direct cause of his death”
3. In amending criminal information, what is primarily guarded against is the impairment
(3) Arraignment –petitioner pleaded not guilty
of the accused’s right to intelligently know the nature of the charge against him.
(4) 1994, Sec of Justice Drilon, finding Betty Yu’s appeal meritous ordered the City
4. In the event however that the appellation of the crime charged as determined by the public
Prosecutor of Roxas City to amend the information by upgrading the offense charged to
prosecutor does not exactly correspond to the actual crime constituted by the criminal
MURDER and impleded additional accused, Hermania Altavas, Osmena Altavas and
acts described in the information, what controls is the description of the criminal acts and
Renato Buhat.
not the technical name supplied by the prosecutor.Characterization of crime is a
(5) Conspiracy was an additional allegation
conclusion on the part of the fiscal.
(6) The amendment was opposed by the petitioner , prosecution had by then already
5. Real nature of the crime charged is determined not from the caption or pre-amble of the
presented 2 witnesses
information nor from the specification of the provision of the law alleged to have been
ISSUE: violated, they being conclusions of law which in no way affect the legal aspect of the
information, but from the actual recital of facts as alleged in the body.
WON the questioned amendment to the information is procedurally infirm 6. The solicitor General is correct—CA erroneously supposed that petitioner and Renato
Buhat are ne and the same, hence the non-inclusion of Renato Buhat as additional
HELD: NO accused in its order allowing amendment of information.
The additional allegation of conspiracy is only a formal amendment, petitioner’s 7. Considering however that further delay of trial of this case is repugnant to our inveterate
participation as a principal not having been affected by such amendment desire for speedy trial and complete disposition of cases, the correct amended
1. Petitioner claims that it is a substantial amendment sadling the petitioner with the need information – to be filed in this court.
of a new defense in order to meet a different situation at a trial court.
- It enables the prosecution to attribute and ascribe to Zuleta all the acts, knowledge, admissions
and even omissions of his co-conspirators. Thus, it would seem inequitable to sanction the
tactical movement at this stage of the controversy, bearing in mind that the accused was only
given 2 days to prepare for trial. (People v. Zulueta)
2. Jurisprudential rule however is not without exception
- Situation where an amendment after plea resulting to the inclusion of an allegation of
conspiracy and indictment of some other persons in addition to the original accused,
constitutes mere formal amendment (Regala v. CFI)
- There was no change in the prosecution’s theory that respondent Ruiz willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously attacked, assaulted and shot….(People v. CA)
3. The additional phrase “conspiring, confedering and helping each other” does not change
the nature of the petitioner’s participation as principal in the killing.
4. No double jeopardy occurred to Osmena, Altavas and Buha
- Altavas : no first jeopardy, first information did not include him

1|That in all things, God may be glorified!

 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WEEK 3
Aleezah Gertrude Regado

FRONDA-BAGGAO v. PEOPLE during the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave of court and when it can be done
without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.
Facts:
However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades the nature of the offense charged in or excludes
(1) 1989, Provincial Prosecutor of Abra filed with the RTC four separate information for any accused from the complaint or information, can be made only upon motion by the prosecutor, with
illegal recruitment against Susan Fronda-Baggao, petitioner and Lawrence Lee notice to the offended party and with leave of court. The court shall state its reasons in resolving the
motion and copies of its order shall be furnished all parties, especially the offended party. (n)
(2) Petitioner eluded arrest for more than a decade. On 1999, the petitioner was finally
arrested If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense,
(3) 1999, prosecutor filed with the TC a motion to amend the information the court shall dismiss the original complaint or information upon the filing of a new one charging the
- Four separate informations for illegal recruitment  one information for proper offense in accordance with section 19, Rule 119, provided the accused shall not be placed in
illegal recruitment in large scale double jeopardy. The court may require the witnesses to give bail for their appearance at the trial. (14a)
(4) TC initially denied the motion. It however granted the motion in an MR
(5) CA—denied the petition for certiorari and prohibition prayed for by the petitioner
(6) Petitioner filed a case before the SC contending that Section 14 of Rule 110 refers to an
amendment of one information only and that amendment of four information into a single
information for a graver offense violates her substantial rights

ISSUE:

WHETHER THE FOUR INFORMATIONS FOR ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT

COULD BE AMENDED AND LUMPED INTO ONE INFORMATION FOR ILLEGAL
RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE

HELD: NO

1. Before the accused enters his plea, a formal or substantial amendment of the complaint
or information may be made without leave of court. After the entry of plea, only a formal
amendment may be made but with leave of court and only if it does not prejudice the
rights of the accused. After arraignment, a substantial amendment is proscribed except if
the same is beneficial to the accused.
2. After a careful scruity of the rule: Although it uses the singular word complaint or
information, it does not mean that two or more complaints or information cannot be
amended into one information
3. Sec 6, Rule 1 –Constuction : These rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote
their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding.
4. It should also be noted that, petitioner has not yet been arraigned. Therefore she cannot
invoke Section 14 of Rule 110.

Provision:

Section 14. Amendment or substitution. — A complaint or information may be amended, in form or in

substance, without leave of court, at any time before the accused enters his plea. After the plea and

2|That in all things, God may be glorified!


RIZARZE V. CA
Facts:
(1) Petitioner Eduardo Rizarze was employed as a collector-messenger by City Service
Corporation. His task is to collect checks payable to Caltex and deliver them to the
cashier
(2) In 1997, Caltex filed a criminal complaint before the city prosec. of Makati for ESTAFA
through falsification of commercial documents
- It was contended that the discovery of the amount made payable to Dante Gutierrez
by one of its depositary banks. The same has been cleared through PCIB
- 2 checks were also missing and that the signatures from the same were allegedly
forged
(3) Gutierrez disowned the savings account together with his alleged signatures
(4) A bank teller positively identified petitioner as the person who opened the savings
account in the name of Gutierrez
(5) 2 informations for estafa was filed
- In both cases the petitioner pleaded not guilty
(6) During trial, SRMO (law office), representing PCIB, filed a Formal Offer of Evidence
which was opposed by Ricarze.
- He contended that under the Informations, the private complainant is Caltex
and not PCIB; hence, the Formal Offer of Evidence filed by SRMO should be
stricken from the records.
- Petitioner further averred that unless the Informations were amended to change
the private complainant to PCIB, his right as accused would be prejudiced.
- He pointed out, however, that the Informations can no longer be amended because
he had already been arraigned under the original Informations.
- He posits that if subrogation was proper, then the charges against him should be
dismissed, the two Informations being "defective and void due to false allegations"
since it failed to name PCIB as true offended party
- He insisted that the amendments of the Informations to substitute PCIB as the
offended party for Caltex would place him in double jeopardy.
(7) PCIB, through SRMO contended that the PCIB had re-credited the amount to Caltex to
the extent of the indemnity;
- the PCIB had been subrogated to the rights and interests of Caltex as private
complainant.
(8) Petitioner filed a Motion to Expunge the Opposition of SRMO. In his Rejoinder, he
averred that the substitution of PCIB as private complainant cannot be made by mere oral
motion;
- the Information must be amended to allege that the private complainant was PCIB
and not Caltex after the preliminary investigation of the appropriate complaint of
PCIB before the Makati City Prosecutor.
(9) In response, the PCIB, through SRMO, averred that as provided in Section 2, Rule 110
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the erroneous designation of the name
of the offended party is a mere formal defect which can be cured by inserting the
name of the offended party in the Information.
3|That in all things, God may be glorified!
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WEEK 3
Aleezah Gertrude Regado
(10) RTC--issued order granting motion of prosecutor for substitution of PCIB as private
complainant for Caltex
- But denied the motion to have formal offer of evidence of SRMO
(11) Petitioner contends that damage or injury is an essential element of estafa and that the
substitution of PCIB for Caltex would prejudice his rights for being deprived of his rights
before the amendment
- Since this amounted to a substantial amendment of the informations prohibited by
Sec. 14, Rule 110 ROC
Issue:
WON the substitution of a party constitutes substantial amendment of the information
as prohibited by the ROC
Ruling:
1. Section 14. Amendment or substitution. – A complaint or information may be amended,
in form or in substance, without leave of court, at any time before the accused enters his
plea. After the plea and during the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with
leave of court and when it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the
accused.
2. Thus, before the accused enters his plea, a formal or substantial amendment of the
complaint or information may be made without leave of court.
3. After the entry of a plea, only a formal amendment may be made but with leave of court
and if it does not prejudice the rights of the accused. After arraignment, a substantial
amendment is proscribed except if the same is beneficial to the accused.
4. A substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts constituting the offense
charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court. All other matters are
merely of form.
5. The following have been held to be mere formal amendments:
i. new allegations which relate only to the range of the penalty that the court might
impose in the event of conviction;
ii. an amendment which does not charge another offense different or distinct from that
charged in the original one;
iii. additional allegations which do not alter the prosecution’s theory of the case so as
to cause surprise to the accused and affect the form of defense he has or will assume;
iv. an amendment which does not adversely affect any substantial right of the accused;
and
v. an amendment that merely adds specifications to eliminate vagueness in the
information and not to introduce new and material facts, and merely states with
additional precision something which is already contained in the original
information and which adds nothing essential for conviction for the crime charged.
6. In the case at bar, the substitution of Caltex by PCIB as private complaint is not a
substantial amendment.
7. The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by amendment is –whether a defense
under the information as it originally stood would be available after the amendment is
made and whether any eveidence defendant might have would be equally applicable to
the information in the form as in the other .
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WEEK 3
Aleezah Gertrude Regado

8. An information which does not change the nature of the offense or cause surprise or
deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment had each been held to
be one of form and not of substance.
9. The substitution did not alter the basis of the charge in both Informations, nor did it result
in any prejudice to petitioner.
10. The documentary evidence in the form of the forged checks remained the same, and all
such evidence was available to petitioner well before the trial. Thus, he cannot claim any
surprise by virtue of the substitution.

4|That in all things, God may be glorified!


ALBERT V. SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts:
(1) 1999, Special Prosecution Officer (SPO) II of Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao
charged the petitioner and his co-accused Sayson and Asumbrado before the
Sandiganbayan with the violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
(2) The information alleged – RAMON A. ALBERT, a public officer, being then the President
of the National Home Mortgage and Finance Corporation, occupying the said position with a
salary grade above 27, while in the performance of his official function, committing the offense
in relation to his office, taking advantage of his official position, conspiring and confederating
with accused FAVIO D. SAYSON, then the Project Director of CODE Foundation Inc. and
accused ARTURO S. ASUMBRADO, then the President of the Buhangin Residents and
Employees Association for Development, Inc., acting with evident bad faith and manifest
partiality and or gross neglect of duty, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally
cause undue injury to the government and public interest, enter and make it appear in Tax
Declaration Nos. D-3-1-7691 and D-3-1-7692 that two parcels of real property particularly
described in the Certificate of Titles Nos. T-151920 and T-151921 are residential lands which Tax
Declarations accused submitted to the NHMFC when in truth and in fact, as accused well knew, the
two pieces of real property covered by Certificate of Titles Nos. T-151920 and T-151921 are
agricultural land, and by reason of accused’s misrepresentation, the NHMFC released the amount
of ₱4,535,400.00 which is higher than the loanable amount the land could command being
agricultural, thus causing undue injury to the government.
(3) 2001, Sandiganbayan arraigned the petitioner who entered the plea of not guilty . Sadiganbayan
subsequently ordered the prosecution tto conduct a reinvestigation with respect to the petitioner
(4) 2003 the SPO who conducted the reinvestigation recommended to the ombudsman the indictment
against the petitioner who reversed for lack of probable cause.
(5) Ombudsman disapproved memorandum and directed the Office of the Special Prosecutor to proceed
with the prosecution in the criminal case.
(6) 2003, In a resolution, the Sandiganbayan scheduled the arraignment on July 2003, which was reset
to October 2003 and was further reset to December 2003.
(7) On October 2003, the prosecution filed a Motion for Leave to admit amended information:
(8) acting with evident bad faith and manifest partiality and/or gross inexcusable
negligence, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally cause undue
injury to the government and public interest…
(9) Petitioner opposed the motion, alleging that the amendment made on the information is
substantial and therefore not allowed after arraignment
(10) Sandiganbayan –even granting that the amendment of the information be formal or
substantial, the prosecution could still effect the same in the event that the accused had
not yet undergone a permanent arraignment. The arraignment of the petitioner on 2001
was merely provisional then, prosecution may still amend the information either in form
or substance.
ISSUE:
5|That in all things, God may be glorified!
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WEEK 3
Aleezah Gertrude Regado
WHETHER THE SANDIGANBAYAN GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN
ADMITTING THE AMENDED INFORMATION
HELD:
PROVISIONAL PLEA
1. The rule does not distinguish between a plea made during a provisional or permanent
arraignment.
2. Since the petitioner already entered a plea of “not guilty” during 2001 arraignment, then
the information may be amended only in form.
3. An arraignment is that stage where in the mode and manner required by the rules, an
accused, for the first time, is granted the opportunity to know the precise charge that
confronts him.
4. The practice of Sandiganbayan of conducting provisional or conditional arraignment is
not sactioned by the Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan or by regular Rules of
Court.
5. Such is recognized provided that the alleged conditions attached thereto should be
“unmistakable, express, informed and enlightened”, the conditions must be expressly
stated in order disposing the arraignment otherwise the arraignment is deemed simple
and unconditional.(People v. Espinosa)
6. In the present case, the arraignment of petitioner is reflected in the Minutes of the
Sandiganbayan Proceeding (2001) which merely states that the accused when arraigned
entered a plea of not guilty.
7. In the Resolution of 16 April 2001, the Sandiganbayan mentioned the arraignment of
petitioner and granted his Urgent Motion to Amend Motion to Lift Hold Departure Order
and to be Allowed to Travel, setting forth the conditions attendant thereto which,
however, were limited only to petitioner’s itinerary abroad; the setting up of additional
bailbond; the required appearance before the clerk of court; and written advice to the
court upon return to the Philippines.
8. Nothing on record is indicative of the provisional or conditional nature of the
arraignment. Hence, following the doctrine laid down in Espinosa, the arraignment of
petitioner should be deemed simple and unconditional.
GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY  GROSS INEXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE
1 Petitioner contends that replacing "gross neglect of duty" with "gross inexcusable
negligence" is a substantial amendment of the Information which is prejudicial to his
rights.
2 The SC is not convinced
3 Petitioner is charged with violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 which has the following
essential elements:1. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative,
judicial or official functions;2. He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad

faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and 3. His action caused any undue injury to any
party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.
4 The second element provides the different modes by which the crime may be committed,
that is, through "manifest partiality," "evident bad faith," or "gross inexcusable
negligence."
5 There is "manifest partiality" when there is a clear, notorious, or plain inclination or
predilection to favor one side or person rather than another. "Evident bad faith" connotes
not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose
to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will
6 Gross inexcusable negligence" refers to negligence characterized by the want of even the
slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not
inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference to
consequences insofar as other persons may be affected
7 The test as to when the rights of an accused are prejudiced by the amendment of a
complaint or information is when a defense under the complaint or information, as it
originally stood, would no longer be available after the amendment is made, and when
any evidence the accused might have, would be inapplicable to the complaint or
information as amended.
8 On the other hand, an amendment which merely states with additional precision
something which is already contained in the original information and which, therefore,
adds nothing essential for conviction for the crime charged is an amendment to form that
can be made at anytime..
9 This Court believes that the same constitutes an amendment only in form.
10 The Court held that a conviction for a criminal negligent act can be had under an
information exclusively charging the commission of a willful offense upon the theory
that the greater includes the lesser offense. Thus, we hold that the inclusion of "gross
inexcusable negligence" in the Information, which merely alleges "manifest partiality"
and "evident bad faith" as modalities in the commission of the crime under Section 3(e)
of RA 3019, is an amendment in form.
RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL
1. petitioner maintains that it took the Office of the Ombudsman twelve (12) years since the
initial filing of the complaint-affidavit in 1992 to charge accused with the offense under
the Amended Information, in violation of petitioner’s right to a speedy trial.
2. After reviewing the records of the case, we believe that the right of petitioner to a speedy
trial was not infringed upon. The issue on the inordinate delay in the resolution of the
complaint-affidavit filed against petitioner and his co-accused and the filing of the
original Information against petitioner was raised in petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss, and
was duly addressed by the Sandiganbayan in its Resolution denying the said motion. It
appears that the said delays were caused by the numerous motions for extension of time
6|That in all things, God may be glorified!
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WEEK 3
Aleezah Gertrude Regado
to file various pleadings and to reproduce documents filed by petitioner’s co-accused,
and that no actual preliminary investigation was conducted on petitioner
E. VENUE – Sec. 15, Rule 110
MACASAET V. PEOPLE
Facts :
(1) In an information filed on 1997, Lorenzo, Macasaet, Quijano Jr. and Pajarez, columnist,
publisher, managing editor and editor of newspaper “Abante” were charged before the
RTC QC with the crime of Libel.
(2) Petitioners filed before the court a quo an urgent motion to suspend their scheduled
arraignment and/or defer the proceedings claiming that they intend to elevate adverse
Resolution of the Office of the Prosecutor of QC
(3) Scheduled arraignment pushed through
(4) Petitioners (Lorenzo and Quiano) together with co-accused (Pajares and Castillo) refused
to enter a plea, therefore a plea of not guilty was entered on their behalf.
(5) 1997, petitioners subsequently filed a Motion to dismiss libel case on the ground that TC
did not have jurisdiction.
(6) 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 Revised Penal Code, to wit:
The criminal 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.
(7) In his opposition, the public prosecutor argued that RTC of QC had jurisdiction over the
case. He maintained that during the time material to this case, private respondent
(private complainant below) was a resident of both 28-D Matino St. corner
Malumanay St., Sikatuna Village, Quezon City and Karen St., Paliparan, Sto. Nio,
Marikina, Metro Manila, as shown in his Reply-Affidavit of 11 October 1996 filed
during the preliminary investigation of the case.
(8) On 16 October 1997, petitioners and their fellow accused filed a Supplemental Reply
attaching thereto certifications issued by Jimmy Ong and Pablito C. Antonio, barangay
captains of Barangay Malaya, Quezon City and Barangay Sto. Nio, Marikina City,
respectively.
(9) TC—dismissed case due to lack of jurisdiction. Although the information alleged the
venue falls within the jurisdiction of QC, the evidence submitted for its consideration
indicated otherwise
i. The editorial box of Abante clearly indicated that the purported libelous
articles was printed and first published in the City of Manila

ii. Address of the respondents in the information appearing “”In Marikina City
although right below was a handwritten notation stating the address of QC”
iii. Two barangay certifications
iv. Memorandum of Preliminary investigation and affidavit-complaint attached to
the information where the given addressed of private respondent was Marikina
City
(10) Defense of private respondent –he understood address to mean the place where he
originally came from, nevertheless such error was rectified by his supplemental affidavit
indicating QC.
(11) CA—reversed TC. Jurisprudentially, for the purpose of determining venue, actual
residence is a person’s place of abode and not necessarily his legal residence or domicile.
Brgy.Certificate no probative value because such requirement is for voting purposes and
can mean either domicile or temporary residence.
ISSUE: WON RTC OF QC HAS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE
CRIME CHARGED.
HELD:
1. Jurisdiction has been defined as the power conferred by law upon a judge or court to try
a case the cognizance of which belongs to them exclusively and it constitutes the basic
foundation of judicial proceedings
2. In criminal actions, it is a fundamental rule that venue is jurisdictional. Thus, the
place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action
but is an essential element of jurisdiction
3. 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 (Uy v. CA & People)
4. The law, however, is more particular in libel cases.
5. In Agbayani v. Sayo, we summarized the foregoing rule in the following manner:
1. Whether the offended party is a public official or a private person, the criminal action
may be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the libelous article
is printed and first published.
7|That in all things, God may be glorified!
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WEEK 3
Aleezah Gertrude Regado
2. If the offended party is a private individual, the criminal action may also be filed in the
Court of First Instance of the province where he actually resided at the time of the
commission of the offense.
3. If the offended party is a public officer whose office is in Manila at the time of the
commission of the offense, the action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
4. If the offended party is a public officer holding office outside of Manila, the action may be
filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he held office at the time of
the commission of the offense
6. n 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. For the guidance, therefore, of both the bench and the bar, this Court finds it appropriate
to reiterate our earlier pronouncement in the case of Agbayani, to wit:
In order to obviate controversies as to the venue of the criminal action for written
defamation, the complaint or information should contain allegations as to whether,
at the time the offense was committed, the offended party was a public officer or a
private individual and where he was actually residing at that time. Whenever
possible, the place where the written defamation was printed and first published
should likewise be alleged. That allegation would be a sine qua non if the
circumstance as to where the libel was printed and first published is used as the
basis of the venue of the action.

BONIFACIO V. RTC OF MAKATI
Facts:
(1) Private respondent Gimenez filed on, on behalf of the Yuchengco Family (in particular,
former Ambassador Alfonso Yuchengco and Helen Y. Dee (Helen) and of the Malayan
Insurance Co., Inc. a criminal complaint before the Makati City Prosecutors Office, for
thirteen (13) counts of libel under Article 355 in relation to Article 353 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC) against Philip Piccio, Mia Gatmaytan and Ma. Anabella Relova
Santos, who are officers of Parents Enabling Parents Coalition, Inc. (PEPCI),
(2) PEPCI appears to have been formed by a large group of disgruntled planholders of
Pacific Plans, Inc. (PPI) - a wholly owned subsidiary of Great Pacific Life Assurance
Corporation, also owned by the Yuchengco Group of Companies (YGC) - who had
previously purchased traditional pre-need educational plans but were unable to collect
thereon or avail of the benefits thereunder
(3) PEPCI sought to provide a forum by which the planholders could seek redress for their
pecuniary loss under their policies by maintaining a website on the internet under the
address of www.pepcoalition.com.
(4) Gimenez alleged that
- PEPCI also owned, controlled and moderated on the internet a blogspot under the
website address www.pacificnoplan.blogspot.com,
- as well as a yahoo e-group at no2pep2010@yahoogroups.com. These websites are
easily accessible to the public or by anyone logged on to the internet.
- Gimenez further alleged that upon accessing the above-stated websites in
Makati on various dates from August 25 to October 2, 2005, he was appalled
to read numerous articles(13), maliciously and recklessly caused to be published
by the accusedcontaining highly derogatory statements and false accusations,
relentlessly attacking the Yuchengco Family, YGC, and particularly, Malayan
(5) By Resolution of 2006, the Makati City Prosecutors Office, finding probable cause to
indict the accused, filed thirteen (13) separate Informations charging them with libel.
(6) Several of the accused appealed the Makati City Prosecutors Resolution by a petition for
review to the Secretary of Justice who, by Resolution of June 20, 2007,[13] reversed the
finding of probable cause and accordingly directed the withdrawal of the Informations
for libel .
(7) Justice Secretary opined that the crime of internet libel was non-existent, hence, the
accused could not be charged with libel under Article 353 of the RPC.
(8) Petitioners, as co-accused, thereupon filed on 2006, before the public respondent, a
Motion to Quashthe Information in Criminal Case No. 06-876 on the grounds that it
failed to vest jurisdiction on the Makati RTC; the acts complained of in the
Information are not punishable by law since internet libel is not covered by Article
353 of the RPC; and the Information is fatally defective for failure to designate the
offense charged and the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense
of libel.
8|That in all things, God may be glorified!
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WEEK 3
Aleezah Gertrude Regado
(9) Citing (Macasaet v. People) petitioners maintained that the Information failed to allege
a particular place within the trial courts jurisdiction where the subject article was printed
and first published or that the offended parties resided in Makati at the time the alleged
defamatory material was printed and first published.
(10) RTC—Granted the motion to quashed the information .It found that the Information
lacked any allegations that the offended parties were actually residing in Makati at the
time of the commission of the offense as in fact they listed their address in the complaint-
affidavit at Yuchengco Tower in Binondo, Manila; or that the alleged libelous article was
printed and first published in Makati
(11) The public respondent granted the prosecutions motion for reconsideration and
accordingly ordered the public prosecutor to amend the Information to cure the
defect of want of venue.
That on or about the 25th day of August 2005 in Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines,
a place within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being
then the trustees of Parents Enabling Parents Coalition and as such trustees they hold the
legal title to the website www.pepcoalition.com which is of general circulation, and
publication to the public conspiring, confederating together with John Does, whose true
names, identities and present whereabouts are still unknown and all of them mutually
helping and aiding one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
and publicly and maliciously with intention of attacking the honesty, virtue, honor and
integrity, character and reputation of complainant Malayan Insurance Co. Inc.,
Yuchengco Family particularly Ambassador Alfonso Yuchengco and Helen Dee and for
further purpose exposing the complainant to public hatred and contempt published an
article imputing a vice or defect to the complainant and caused to be composed,
posted and published in the said website www.pepcoalition.com, a website
accessible in Makati City, an injurious and defamatory article, which was first
published and accessed by the private complainant in Makati City.
(12) By the assailed Order of April 22, 2008, the public respondent, applying Banal III, found
the Amended Information to be sufficient in form.
ISSUE:
WON GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION ATTENDED THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT’S
ADMISSION OF THE AMENDED INFORMATION
HELD:
1. 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: …xxxx

2. Venue is jurisdictional in criminal actions such that the place where the crime was
committed determines not only the venue of the action but constitutes an essential
element of jurisdiction.[33] This principle acquires even greater import in libel cases,
given that Article 360, as amended, specifically provides for the possible venues for the
institution of the criminal and civil aspects of such cases.
3. In Macasaet, the Court reiterated its earlier pronouncements in Agbayani v. Sayo[35]
which laid out the rules on venue in libel cases,:
In order to obviate controversies as to the venue of the criminal action for written defamation, the
complaint or information should contain allegations as to whether, at the time the offense was
committed, the offended party was a public officer or a private individual and where he was actually
residing at that time. Whenever possible, the place where the written defamation was printed and
first published should likewise be alleged. That allegation would be a sine qua non if the
circumstance as to where the libel was printed and first published is used as the basis of the venue
of the action. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
4. It becomes clear that the venue of libel cases where the complainant is a private
individual is limited to only either of two places, namely: 1) where the complainant
actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense; or 2) where the alleged
defamatory article was printed and first published.
5. The Amended Information in the present case opted to lay the venue by availing of the
second. Thus, it stated that the offending article was first published and accessed by the
private complainant in Makati City.
6. The insufficiency of the allegations in the Amended Information to vest jurisdiction
in Makati becomes pronounced upon an examination of the rationale for the
amendment to Article 360 by RA No. 4363. Chavez v. Court of Appeals[36] explained
the nature of these changes:
Before article 360 was amended, the rule was that a criminal action for libel may be instituted in
any jurisdiction where the libelous article was published or circulated, irrespective of where it was
written or printed (People v. Borja, 43 Phil. 618).
7. Experience had shown that under that old rule the offended party could harass the
accused in a libel case by laying the venue of the criminal action in a remote or distant
place.
8. Clearly, the evil sought to be prevented by the amendment to Article 360 was the
indiscriminate or arbitrary laying of the venue in libel cases in distant, isolated or
far-flung areas, meant to accomplish nothing more than harass or intimidate an
accused. The disparity or unevenness of the situation becomes even more acute where
the offended party is a person of sufficient means or possesses influence, and is motivated
by spite or the need for revenge.
9. The same measure cannot be reasonably expected when it pertains to defamatory material
appearing on a website on the internet as there would be no way of determining the situs
of its printing and first publication.
10. To credit Gimenezs premise of equating his first access to the defamatory article on
petitioners website in Makati with printing and first publication would spawn the very
ills that the amendment to Article 360 of the RPC sought to discourage and prevent.
9|That in all things, God may be glorified!
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WEEK 3
Aleezah Gertrude Regado
RIGOR V. PEOPLE
Facts:
(1) 1989, appellant (petitioner herein) applied for a commercial loan from the Rural
Bank of San Juan, Inc., at N. Domingo St., San Juan, Metro Manila in the sum of
P500,000.00
(2) He signed a promissory note stating that an interest of 24% per annum from its date
will be charged on the loan (Exh. B).
(3) The loan was approved by RBSJs Bank Manager Melquecedes de Guzman and
Controller Agustin Uy. A cashiers check with RBSJ No. 2023424 in the amount of
P487,000.00, net proceeds of the loan, was issued to appellant (Exh. C).
(4) Appellant endorsed, then encashed the check with RBSJ Teller Eleneth Cruz, who
stamped thereon the word paid (Exh. C-4).
(5) After appellant received the proceeds, he issued an undated check, Associated Bank
Check No. 165476, Tarlac Branch, in the amount of P500,000, payable to RBSJ
(Exh. D).
(6) A usual loan does not get approved on the same day.Appellants case was a special
one considering that he is the kumpare of the President of RBSJ
(7) Appellant failed to pay for the said loan
(8) On May 25, 1990, Associated Bank check was deposited with PS Bank The
check was later returned with the words closed account stamped on its face.
Associated Bank employee PASION declared that appellants Current Account
No. 1022-001197-9 with Associated Bank had been closed since February 2,
1990. Appellants balance under the banks statement of account as of November
16, 1989 was only P859. The most appellant had on his account was P40,000
recorded on November 19, 1989 (Exh. K).
(9) Basangan and Garcia, in Tarlac, advised appellant of the dishonor of his check.
(10) De Guzman required him to take the necessary step for the early settlement of his
obligation. He still refused to pay.
(11) Appellant denied the charge. He claimed that on November 16, 1989, Agapito Uy
and his sister Agnes Angeles proposed to him that he secure a loan from the RBSJ
for P500,000. P200,000 of it will be for him and the P300,000 will go to Uy and to
his sister to pay unpaid loans of borrowers in their side banking activities.
(12) For the approval of his loan, Uy told him that appellant can put up his four-door
Mercedes Benz as collateral for the P200,000 loan. The P300,000 will have no
collateral. Uy also told him the he (Uy) has complete control of the bank and his
Mercedes Benz will be enough collateral for the P500,000.
(13) Appellant agreed to the proposal. He signed a blank loan application form and a
promissory note plus a chattel mortgage for his Mercedes Benz.

(14) Thereafter, he was told to come back in two days. Uy gave him two Premiere Bank
checks worth P100,000 each. He gave one check to his brother Efren Rigor and the
other to his sister-in-law for encashment in Tarlac. He issued to Uy a personal check
for P500,000 undated. This check was deposited in the bank for encashment in the
later part of May, 1990 but it bounced.
(15) When demand was made for him to pay his loan, he told Uy to get his Mercedes
Benz as payment for P200,000 but Uy refused. Uy wanted him to pay the whole
amount of P500,000.[2]
(16) TC –Rigor guilty of violation of BP 22
(17) CA—affirmed
(18) Petitioner is now before the SC and claims that The Pasig Court below had no
jurisdiction to try and decide case for violation of BP 22.
ISSUE: WON COURT HAS JURISDICTION
HELD: YES
LIABILITY: BP 22
1. The elements of the offense are: (1) Making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply
on account or for value; (2) knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of
issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment
of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) subsequent dishonor of the check by
the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or dishonor of the check for the
same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop
payment.
2. As found by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, all the aforementioned
elements are present in this case.
3. We hold that appellants admission of the insufficiency of his fund at the time he issued
the check constitutes the very element of knowledge contemplated in Sec. 1 of BP 22.
4. Knowledge that he had insufficient funds at the time he issued the check, such knowledge
by the payee is immaterial as deceit is not an essential element of the offense under Batas
Pambansa Bilang 22. The gravamen of the offense is the issuance of a bad check; hence,
malice and intent in the issuance thereof are inconsequential.[15]
RTC JURISDICTION
(1) Lastly, petitioner contends that the Regional Trial Court of Pasig had no jurisdiction over
this case since no proof has been offered that his check was issued, delivered, dishonored
or that knowledge of insufficiency of funds occurred in the Municipality of San Juan,
Metro Manila.
10 | T h a t i n a l l t h i n g s , G o d m a y b e g l o r i f i e d !
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WEEK 3
Aleezah Gertrude Regado
Section 15, paragraph (a), of Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
which reflects the old rule provides:
Sec. 15. Place where action is to be instituted.
(a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the
court of the municipality or territory where the offense was committed or where
any of its essential ingredients occurred. (Emphasis supplied.)
(2) Violations of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 are categorized as transitory or continuing
crimes.
(3) 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.
(4) Hence, a person charged with a transitory crime may be validly tried in any
municipality or territory where the offense was in part committed
(5) The evidence clearly shows that the undated check was issued and delivered at the Rural
Bank of San Juan, M.Manila
(6) on 1989, and subsequently the check was dated February 16, 1990 thereat.
(7) On May 25, 1990, the check was deposited with PS Bank, San Juan Branch, Metro
Manila
(8) 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. x x
(9) The information at bar effectively charges San Juan as the place of drawing and
issuing. The jurisdiction of courts in criminal cases is determined by the allegations
of the complaint or information. Although, the check was dishonored by the drawee,
Associated Bank, in its Tarlac Branch, appellant has drawn, issued and delivered it
at RBSJ, San Juan.
(10) The place of issue and delivery was San Juan and knowledge, as an essential part of the
offense, was also overtly manifested in San Juan. There is no question that crimes
committed in November, 1989 in San Juan are triable by the RTC stationed in Pasig. In
short both allegation and proof in this case sufficiently vest jurisdiction upon the RTC in
Pasig City.

UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES V. PEOPLE
Facts:
(1) Tomas was charged in court for perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC) for making a false narration in a Certificate against Forum Shopping.
(2) The accusation stemmed from petitioner Union Banks two (2) complaints for sum of
money with prayer for a writ of replevin against the spouses Eddie and Eliza Tamondong
and a John Doe.
1st complaint RTC, Branch 109, Pasay City on April 13, 1998
2nd complaint MeTC, Branch 47, Pasay City on March 15, 2000
Both complaints showed that Tomas executed and signed the Certification against
Forum Shopping.
Accordingly, she was charged of deliberately violating Article 183 of the RPC by
falsely declaring under oath in the Certificate against Forum Shopping in the second
complaint that she did not commence any other action or proceeding involving the
same issue in another tribunal or agency.
(3) Tomas filed a Motion to Quash citing two grounds
i. venue was improperly laid since it is the Pasay City court (where the Certificate
against Forum Shopping was submitted and used) and not the MeTC-Makati
City (where the Certificate against Forum Shopping was subscribed) that has
jurisdiction over the perjury case.
ii. Second, she argued that the facts charged do not constitute an offense because:
(a) the third element of perjury the willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood
was not alleged with particularity without specifying what the other action or
proceeding commenced involving the same issues in another tribunal or
agency; (b) there was no other action or proceeding pending in another court
when the second complaint was filed; and (c) she was charged with perjury by
giving false testimony while the allegations in the Information make out
perjury by making a false affidavit.
(4) MeTC—denied motion to quash ruling that it has jurisdiction over the case since the
Certificate against Forum Shopping was notaraized inn Makati City
(5) RTC – (Denied Motion) Given the present state of jurisprudence on the matter, it is not
amiss to state that the city court of Makati City has jurisdiction to try and decide the case
for perjury inasmuch as the gist of the complaint itself which constitute[s] the charge
against the petitioner dwells solely on the act of subscribing to a false certification.
On the other hand, the charge against the accused in the case of Ilusorio v. Bildner, et al.,
based on the complaint-affidavits therein[,] was not simply the execution of the
questioned documents but rather the introduction of the false evidence through the
subject documents before the court of Makati City
11 | T h a t i n a l l t h i n g s , G o d m a y b e g l o r i f i e d !
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WEEK 3
Aleezah Gertrude Regado
ISSUE: WHETHER THE PROPER VENUE FOR PERJURY UNDER ART 183 OF RPC
SHOULD BE MAKATI
HELD:
We deny the petition and hold that the MeTC-Makati City is the proper venue and the
proper court to take cognizance of the perjury case against the petitioners.
Venue of Action and Criminal Jurisdiction
1. 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.
2. The reason for this rule is two-fold. First, 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 jurisdictionSecond, 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.
3. Unlike in civil cases, a finding of improper venue in criminal cases carries jurisdictional
consequences.
4. The above provision should be read in light of Section 10, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure which state:
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.
Information Charging Perjury
5. Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, contains the
requirement for a Certificate against Forum Shopping.
6. The Certificate against Forum Shopping can be made either by a statement under oath in
the complaint or initiatory pleading asserting a claim or relief; it may also be in a sworn
certification annexed to the complaint or initiatory pleading. In both instances, the affiant
is required to execute a statement under oath before a duly commissioned notary public
or any competent person authorized to administer oath
7. In this case, Tomas is charged with the crime of perjury under Article 183 of the RPC
for making a false Certificate against Forum Shopping. The elements of perjury under
Article 183 are:
(a) That the accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material
matter
(b) That the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive
and administer oath.
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WEEK 3
Aleezah Gertrude Regado

(c) That in the statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of
a falsehood.
(d) That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made
for a legal purpose.[15] (emphasis ours)

8. 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.
9. 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 MeTC-Makati City.

10. 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.
11. 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:
12. 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:
13. Thus, Makati City is the proper venue and MeTC-Makati City is the proper court to try
the perjury case against
14. To reiterate for the guidance of the Bar and the Bench, the crime of perjury
committed through the making of a false affidavit under Article 183 of the RPC is
committed at the time the affiant subscribes and swears to his or her affidavit since
it is at that time that all the elements of the crime of perjury are executed.
15. When the crime is committed through false testimony under oath in a proceeding that is
neither criminal nor civil, venue is at the place where the testimony under oath is given.
16. If in lieu of or as supplement to the actual testimony made in a proceeding that is neither
criminal nor civil, a written sworn statement is submitted, venue may either be at the
place where the sworn statement is submitted or where the oath was taken as the taking
of the oath and the submission are both material ingredients of the crime committed. In
all cases, determination of venue shall be based on the acts alleged in the Information to
be constitutive of the crime committed.

12 | T h a t i n a l l t h i n g s , G o d m a y b e g l o r i f i e d !
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WEEK 3
Aleezah Gertrude Regado

TRENAS V. PEOPLE 1. On the first issue, petitioner asserts that nowhere in the evidence presented by the
prosecution does it show that ₱150,000 was given to and received by petitioner in Makati
Facts : City.
2. Instead, the evidence shows that the Receipt issued by petitioner for the money was dated
(1) Sometime in December 1999, Margarita Alocilja (Margarita) wanted to buy a house-
22 December 1999, without any indication of the place where it was issued.
and-lot in Iloilo City
3. Meanwhile, the Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage prepared by petitioner was
(2) . It was then mortgaged with Maybank. The bank manager Joselito Palma recommended
signed and notarized in Iloilo City, also on 22 December 1999.
the appellant Hector Treas (Hector) to private complainant Elizabeth, who was an
4. Petitioner claims that the only logical conclusion is that the money was actually
employee and niece of Margarita, for advice regarding the transfer of the title in the
delivered to him in Iloilo City, especially since his residence and office were situated
latters name.
there as well
(3) Hector informed Elizabeth about the expenses entailed for the titling of the property in
- . The only time Makati City was mentioned was with respect to the time when the
the name of her aunt Margarita
check provided by petitioner was dishonored by Equitable-PCI Bank in its De la
(4) Thereafter, Elizabeth gave P150,000.00 to Hector who issued a corresponding receipt
Rosa-Rada Branch in Makati. Petitioner asserts that the prosecution witness failed
dated December 22, 1999 and prepared [a] Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage.
to allege that any of the acts material to the crime of estafa had occurred in Makati
Subsequently, Hector gave Elizabeth Revenue Official Receipt Nos. 00084370 for
City. Thus, the trial court failed to acquire jurisdiction over the case.
P96,000.00 and 00084369 for P24,000.00. However, when she consulted with the BIR,
- argues that an accused is not required to present evidence to prove lack of
she was informed that the receipts were fake. When confronted, Hector admitted to her
jurisdiction, when such lack is already indicated in the prosecution evidence.
that the receipts were fake and that he used the P120,000.00 for his other transactions.
5. As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45 of
Elizabeth demanded the return of the money.
the Rules of Court. In many instances, however, this Court has laid down exceptions to
(5) To settle his accounts, appellant Hector issued in favor of Elizabeth a Bank of
this general rule, as follows:
Commerce check
(6) When the check was deposited with the PCIBank, Makati Branch, the same was
dishonored for the reason that the account was closed. Notwithstanding repeated formal
and verbal demands, appellant failed to pay. Thus, the instant case of Estafa was filed
(1) When the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory;
against him
(2) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or
(7) On 29 October 2001, an Information was filed by the Office of the City Prosecutor
conjectures;
before the (RTC), both of Makati City.
(3) When the inference made by the Court of Appeals from its findings of fact is
(8) During arraignment on 2002, petitioner, acting as his own counsel, entered a plea of
manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
Not Guilty.
(4) When there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts;
(9) Allegedly due to old age and poor health, and the fact that he lives in Iloilo City,
(5) When the appellate court, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case,
petitioner was unable to attend the pre-trial and trial of the case.
and such findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(10) RTC—Petitioner guilty of estafa
(6) When the judgment of the Court of Appeals is premised on misapprehension of facts;
(11) We note at this point that petitioner has been variably called Treas and Trenas in the
(7) When the Court of Appeals failed to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly
pleadings and court issuances, but for consistency, we use the name Treas, under
considered, would justify a different conclusion;
which he was accused in the Information.
(8) When the findings of fact are themselves conflicting;
(12) CA-Affirmed RTC
(9) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the specific evidence on
ISSUE: WON THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT AN ACCUSED which they are based; and
HAS TO PRESENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF (10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of
JURISDICTION EVEN IF SUCH LACK OF JURISDICTION APPEARS IN THE evidence but such findings are contradicted by the evidence on record.[14]
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION;

HELD:

13 | T h a t i n a l l t h i n g s , G o d m a y b e g l o r i f i e d !
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WEEK 3
Aleezah Gertrude Regado

6. Based on the evidence presented by the prosecution through private complainant

Elizabeth Luciaja, the Court is convinced that accused Trenas had committed the
offense of Estafa by taking advantage of her trust so that he could misappropriate
for his own personal benefit the amount entrusted to him for payment of the capital
gains tax and documentary stamp tax.

JURISDICTION OF THE TRIAL COURT

1. The overarching consideration in this case is the principle that, in criminal cases, venue
is jurisdictional.
2. A court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense committed
outside its limited territory. In Isip v. PeopleThe 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. 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. (Emphasis supplied.)
3. In a criminal case, the prosecution must not only prove that the offense was
committed, it must also prove the identity of the accused and the fact that the offense
was committed within the jurisdiction of the court.
4. In the present case, the criminal information against Fukuzume was filed with and tried
by the RTC of Makati. He was charged with estafa as defined under Article 315,
paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of which are as follows: x x x
5. The crime was alleged in the Information as having been committed in Makati.
However, aside from the sworn statement executed by Yu on April 19, 1994, the
prosecution presented no other evidence, testimonial or documentary, to
corroborate Yu's sworn statement or to prove that any of the above-enumerated
elements of the offense charged was committed in Makati.
6. Indeed, the prosecution failed to establish that any of the subsequent In this case, the
prosecution failed to show that the offense of estafa under Section 1, paragraph (b) of
Article 315 of the RPC was committed within the jurisdiction of the RTC of Makati City.
7. Indeed, 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
were committed in Makati.

14 | T h a t i n a l l t h i n g s , G o d m a y b e g l o r i f i e d !