SECTION 10- PLACE AND COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE

Purpose: To show territorial jurisdiction.

General Rule: A complaint or information is sufficient if it appears from
the allegations that the offense was committed or some of its essential
ingredients occurred within the jurisdiction of the court.

People vs Mercado
1. An appeal of the ruling of the Trial Court of Candaba, Pampanga, declaring itself lack of jurisdiction of the case
of theft againts Franciasco Mercado.
2. Supreme Court held that the case should have been and should commence in Gapan, Nueva Ecija, affirming
the decision of Court of First Instance of Candaba, Pampanga.

Alfelor vs Intia

1. Electoral protest of Fuentabella against Alfelor for the 1965 Congressional election wherein, Alfelor won.
2. Fuentabella filed the case in Tigaon Cam Sur presided by Judge Intia, allegedly Ballot box of Parucban ,
Camarines Sur was falsified in another town of Iriga, Camarines Sur.
3. Alfelor filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, Intia denied the motion to dismiss hence the
petition for certiorari and prohibition.
4. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court for lack of jurisdiction

Reason for the rule:
1. Informing the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and fixing the jurisdiction and
venue.
2. Limitation of the territory

ALLEGATION OF SPECIFIC PLACE, NOT REQUIRED- In some cases it is not required
that the complaint will state in particularity the place where the alleged crime was committed.

People vs Prado
1. Del Prado appeal from the conviction of rape by the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga for the crime of rape.
2. Del Prado contended that the prosecution failed to prove that the crime was committed in the territory within its
jurisdiction.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed his petition, on the basis that the Court may take Judicial notice as the Bario of
Calarian is in Municipality of Zamboanga.

People vs Salico
1. This is an appeal of provincial fiscal from the dismissal of the case against Salico charged with homicide on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction.
2. The Supreme Court held that lower court erred in not taking judicial notice as it ought to the political subdivision or
Municipalities. Victorias is within the province of Negros Occidental therefore within the jurisdiction of the Court.
3. The case was returned to the lower court and order to proceed the case on the merits.

May the conviction be had even if it appears that the crime was committed not at the place alleged in the
information?

YES, provided the place of actual commission was within the jurisdiction of the court.



Exception (to the rule)- WHEN SPECIFIC PLACE NEED BE AVERRED (verify)
When the place of the commission of the crime is an essential element of the offense, the
place of commission must be alleged with particularity.
Example of cases (the place is an essential element of the offense
charge)

1. Tresspass to dwelling
2. Destructive Arson
3. Robbery in an inhabited house, public building or place of worship

THE PLACE MUST BE PLEADED WITH SPECIFICITY.

SECTION 18- DATE OF COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE

General Rule- It is not required that the complain t or information state with particularity the DATE of the
commission of the crime. It suffices that the allegation approximates or be as near as the actual date
when the offense was committed.

US vs De Castro
1. The defendant Lino De Castro was convicted the offense bribery of Court of First Instance of Tayabas, as
Municipal President of the town in considerations of gifts and money, he permitted use of opium and gambling.
2. De Castro filed a petition to dimiss on the ground that the complaint did not state the date which the offense was
committed nor person from the accused received the bribe.
3. Although the time is not essential element in this case, it is required that the time of the commission of the crime
should be stated, and the act should be alleged to have been committed at some time before filing of the case.
4. The decision of the lower court was reversed.

Exception to the Rule- When time is material ingredient in the offense
charged, it becomes mandatory to alleged with precision or
particularity.

Example of cases (averment of time)
1. Infanticide
2. Abortion
3. Bigamy

The remedy against an indictment that fails to allege the time of commission of the offense with sufficient definiteness is
a MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS under Rule 116.
People vs Elpedes

1. Appeal of the decision of conviction of the case of rape against Jose Elpedes filed by his daughter Alma
Elpedes.
2. Elpedes was charged with raping his daugher on Feb. 11, 1997 as per the information of the complaint
but testified that rape was happened on August 11, 1997.
3. Jose Elpedes contended that he can not be convicted on charged where the evidenced shows that
the rape was committed other that the date indicated on the in the information.
4. Section 11 of Rule 110, it is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise
date the offense was committed except when it is material ingredient of the offense.
5. The Supreme Court held that the exact date of the crime of rape is not essential element of the
crime.