Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 100, Quezon City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

Criminal Case No. Q-11-15690

- versus - Violation of section 1(b), Article 315
Revised Penal Code

VLADIMIR TIAMSON SISON

Defendant

x------------------------------------------------x

MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

COMES NOW the Defendant, Vladimir Tiamson Sison, through the

undersigned counsel, most respectfully moves for the dismissal of the above-
captioned case based on the following:

PREFATORY STATEMENT
Explaining the rule that venue is an essential element in criminal
prosecution, the Supreme Court held in Foz, Jr. vs People1:
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

1
G.R. No. 167764, October 9, 2009
 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.

THE HONORABLE COURT HAS NO

TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE
INSTANT CRIMINAL CASE

1. Well-settled is the rule that venue 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. Under section 1, paragraph (b), of Article 315 of the Revised Penal
Code, the following are the elements of estafa:
a. That money, goods, or other personal property be received by
the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration,
or under any other obligation involving the duty to make
delivery of, or to return, the same;
b. That there be misappropriation or conversion of such money
or property by the offender, or denial on his part of such
receipt;
c. That such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the
prejudice of another; and
d. That there is a demand made by the offended party to the
offender.

3. In the instant case, the prosecution failed to show that any of the
elements of the offense were committed in Quezon City. The prosecution contends
that the offense charged was consummated on September 3, 2018 when the Bank
of the Philippine Islands, Matalino Branch in Quezon City, dishonored the check
that the Defendant issued to the private complainant, Maria Teresa Tiongco. Thus,
it is alleged that this Honorable Court has jurisdiction over the instant case.
4. However, the dishonor of the check is not material in estafa. In this
case, while it was alleged in the criminal information that the offense was
committed in Quezon City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
Affidavit of Complaint (“Affidavit”) executed by the private complainant does not
contain any allegation that any of the essential ingredients of the offense charged

2
were committed in Quezon City. The private complainant herself alleged that the
personal delivery by the Defendant to the former of the post-dated check happened
in Baguio City. The only time that Quezon City was mentioned was with respect
to the allegation that the private complainant presented the check for encashment
in BPI, Matalino Branch, which the latter subsequently dishonored. The Affidavit
provides in part:
xxx
d. That on July 3, 2018, [Maria Teresa Tiangco] personally
gave the sum of P250,000.00 in check to Vladimir Sison,
also an employee at the Commission on Audit-Cordillera
Administrative Region at Casa Vallejo, Upper Session
Road, Baguio City;
e. That the said amount was to be deposited by Vladimir
Sison in [the] account [of Maria Teresa Tiangco] in the
COA Employees Credit Association in COA Central
Office in Quezon City just in time for the scheduled travel
of Sison to COA-CO for a training;
f. That on July 9, 2018, Vladimir Sison personally delivered
to [Maria Teresa Tiangco] the deposit slip and statement
of account at Chef’s Home, No. 88 Unit C, Old Sicat
Hotel, Aspiras-Palispis Highway, Baguio City.
g. That upon verification, said documents turned out to be
fake and no deposit was made by Vladimir Sison.
h. That on August 27, 2018, [Maria Teresa Tiangco] met
again Vladimir Sison in Arca’s Yard, 777 Tiptop,
Ambuklao Road, Baguio City, and the latter promised to
refund the money by giving a post-dated BPI check in the
amount of P250,000.00.
i. That on September 3, 2018, [Maria Teresa Tiangco]
caused the encashment of the check in BPI, Matalino
Branch, Quezon City but the same was dishonored due
to insufficient funds. (Emphasis supplied.) xxx

Indeed, the presentment of the check for encashment and its dishonor are
irrelevant. What is of decisive importance is the delivery of the instrument which
is the final act essential to its consummation as an obligation.2 Verily, all the
essential elements of estafa were committed in Baguio City, not in Quezon City.
5. Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure provides:

2
Ruel Francis M. Cabral Vs. Chris S. Bracamonte, G.R. No. 233174, January 23, 2019
3
 a. Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be
instituted and tried in the court or municipality or territory
where the offense was committed or where any of its
essential ingredients occurred.

6. The above provision should be read together with Section 10 of the

same Rule which provides:
d. 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.

7. Both provisions categorically place the venue and jurisdiction over

criminal cases not only in the court where the offense was committed, but also
where any of its essential ingredients took place.3
8. The same provisions underscore the protection that the law affords to
the Defendant to ensure that he is not compelled to move to, and appear in, a
different court from that of the province where the crime was committed as it
would cause him great inconvenience in looking for his witnesses and other
evidence in another place.4 The same is availing in this particular case because of
the considerable distance between Baguio City and Quezon City, depriving the
Defendant of his opportunity to efficiently prepare for his defense.
9. It was also noted that the private complainant filed the complaint two
weeks after her transfer of assignment in COA Central Office in Quezon City. It
cannot be more emphasized at this point that jurisdiction is conferred by law and
not by the private complainant’s own choosing.
10.There being no showing that the offense was committed within
Quezon City, this Honorable Court has no jurisdiction over the case.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Defendant prays that plaintiff’s
complaint be dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

3
Union Bank of the Philippines v. People, 667 SCRA 113
4
Campanano v. Datuin, 536 SCRA 471.
4
 Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.
Baguio City for Quezon City, Metro Manila, 13 March 2019.

MANGONDATO & DUMARAN

Counsel for Defendant
VLADIMIR T. SISON
M&A Law Office
101 Session Rd, Mabini Street
124 Baguio City
Tel. No.: (074) 111-9999
Fax No.: (074) 123-6578

By:

CEASAR Y. DUMARAN
PTR No. X-5689758 – 01/04/18 – Baguio City
IBP Life Member Roll
No. 01589 – 01/09/08 – Baguio City
Roll of Attorneys No. 66978
MCLE Compliance No. V-00145785 – 10/14/2016

ARIEL M. GATCHALIAN
PTR No. X-1587859 – 02/09/18 – Baguio City
IBP Life Member Roll
No. 02356 – 09/02/11 – Baguio City
Roll of Attorneys No. 78985
MCLE Compliance No. V-00157468 – 09/18/2017

COPIES FURNISHED:
(By Registered Mail)

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court National Capital Judicial Region
Quezon City, Branch 100

THE HONORABLE ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR

Office of the City Prosecutor
Hall of Justice, Quezon City
5
 NOTICE OF HEARING

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court National Capital Judicial Region
Quezon City, Branch 100

THE HONORABLE ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR

Office of the City Prosecutor
Hall of Justice, Quezon City

Please take notice that the foregoing Motion will be submitted for the
Court’s consideration and resolution on 15 April 2019 at 8:30 a.m. or as soon
thereafter as matter and counsel may be heard.

CEASAR Y. DUMARAN

EXPLANATION FOR SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

Please be informed that the undersigned counsel caused the service of copies
of the instant Motion to Dismiss upon the above-named parties by Registered Mail,
due to time constraints, the shortage of available manpower to effect personal
service, and the considerable distance between the Honorable Office and the office
of the above-named parties from the office of the undersigned counsel.

CEASAR Y. DUMARAN