Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11

GRACE NOTES CRUZ V.

COURT OF APPEALS

A. GENERAL MATTERS G.R. No. 123340. August 29, 2002

FACTS: Lutgarda Cruz was charged with the crime of “Estafa


through Falsification of Public Document” before the Manila
Regional Trial Court.
ANTIPORDA V. GARCHITORENA Petitioner executed before a Notary Public in the City of Manila
an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication of a parcel of land stating that
G.R. No. L-133289, 321 SCRA 551, December 23, 1999
she was the sole surviving heir of the registered owner when
FACTS: Petitioners were charged with the crime of kidnapping in fact she knew there were other surviving heirs. Since the
one Elmer Ramos filed before the Sandiganbayan without offended party did not reserve the right to file a separate civil
claiming that one of the accused is a public officer who took action arising from the criminal offense, the civil action was
advantage of his position. The information was amended to deemed instituted in the criminal case. On January 28, 1994,
effectively describe the offense charged herein and for the petitioner received a copy of the decision. On February 10,
court to effectively exercise its jurisdiction over the same by 1994, petitioner filed by registered mail a motion for
stating that Antiporda took advantage of his position. Accused reconsideration dated February 7, 1994, assailing the trial
filed a motion for new preliminary investigation and to hold in court’s ruling on the civil aspect of the criminal case. Petitioner
abeyance and/or recall warrant of arrest issued. The same was furnished the City Prosecutor a copy of the motion by
denied. The accused subsequently filed a motion to quash the registered mail. Left with no recourse, petitioner filed a
amended information for lack of jurisdiction over the offense petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals
charged because of the amended information. This was denied to nullify the two assailed orders of the trial court. Petitioner
as well as the MR on the same. Hence, this petition before the also asked the Court of Appeals to compel the trial court to
Supreme Court. resolve her motion for reconsideration of the decision dated
February 7, 1994.After trial on the merits, the trial court
ISSUE: Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the rendered its decision dated January 17, 1994acquitting
subject matter. petitioner on the ground of reasonable doubt. In the same
RULING: YES. They are estopped from assailing the jurisdiction decision, the trial court rendered judgment on the civil aspect
of the Sandiganbayan. The original Information filed with the of the case, ordering the return to the surviving heirs of the
Sandiganbayan did not mention that the offense committed by parcel of land located in Bulacan.
the accused is office-related. It was only after the same was ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC of Manila had jurisdiction over
filed that the prosecution belatedly remembered that a the civil aspect of the case
jurisdictional fact was omitted therein. However, we hold that
the petitioners are estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of RULING: Yes. The RTC of Manila has jurisdiction to render
the Sandiganbayan for in the supplemental arguments to judgment on the civil aspect of the Criminal Case. There are
motion for reconsideration and/or reinvestigation dated June three important requisites which must be present before a
10, 1997 filed with the same court, it was they who "challenged court can acquire criminal jurisdiction. First, the court must
the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court over the case and have jurisdiction over the subject matter. Second, the court
clearly stated in their Motion for Reconsideration that the said must have jurisdiction over the territory where the offense
crime is work connected. was committed. Third, the court must have jurisdiction over
the person of the accused.
Jurisdiction is the power with which courts are invested for
administering justice, that is, for hearing and deciding cases. In In the instant case, the trial court had jurisdiction over the
order for the court to have authority to dispose of the case on subject matter as the law has conferred on the court the power
the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter to hear and decide cases involving estafa through falsification
and the parties. In the case of Arula vs. Espino it was quite clear of a public document. The trial court also had jurisdiction over
that all three requisites, i.e., jurisdiction over the offense, the offense charged since the crime was committed within its
territory and person, must concur before a court can acquire territorial jurisdiction. The trial court also acquired jurisdiction
jurisdiction to try a case. It is undisputed that the over the person of accused-petitioner because she voluntarily
Sandiganbayan had territorial jurisdiction over the case. And submitted to the court’s authority. Where the court has
we are in accord with the petitioners when they contended jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person of the
that when they filed a motion to quash it was tantamount to a accused, and the crime was committed within its territorial
voluntary submission to the Court's authority. jurisdiction, the court necessarily exercises jurisdiction over all
issues that the law requires the court to resolve. One of the
issues in a criminal case is the civil liability of the accused
arising from the crime. Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code Aportadera, Jr. to the Office of the Special Prosecutor for
provides that “[E]very person criminally liable for a felony is review and if warranted, for the preparation of the criminal
also civilly liable.” Article 104 of the same Code states that information. In a memorandum dated July l5, 1992 the Office
“civil liability x x x includes restitution.” of the Special Prosecutor affirmed the recommendation as
contained in the Resolution dated June 2,1992. August 19,
1992 then Ombudsman Conrado M. Vasquez ordered the
panel of investigators to discuss the merits of the prejudicial
question posed by respondent Lobregat. In a Memorandum
COJUANGCO V. SANDIGANBAYAN dated December 1, 1993 the panel of investigators
recommended that the motion to suspend proceedings be
(Quisumbing, December 21, 1998) granted. On December 3, 1993 then Ombudsman Vasquez
no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon referred for comment to the Office of the Special Prosecutors
a probable cause to be determined personally by the judge the Memorandum dated December 1, 1993 of the panel of
after examination under oath or affirmation of the investigators on the issue of the existence of prejudicial
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and question. On February 17, 1995, an order for the arrest of
particularly describing the place to be searched and the petitioner was issued by the respondent Sandiganbayan. On
persons or things to be seized. The clause unequivocally means February 22, 1995, petitioner posted bail. On the same day he
that the judge must make his own determination— likewise filed, through counsel, a Manifestation stating that he
independent of that of the prosecutor — of whether there is was posting bail without prejudice to the Opposition To
probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest, based on the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest with Motion For Leave To File a
complainant's and his witnesses' accounts, if any. Supporting Motion For Reconsideration of the Ombudsman's Resolution
evidence other than the report and recommendation of the which he filed. In a Resolution dated February 20, 1995, the
investigators and the special prosecutor should be examined respondent Sandiganbayan barred petitioner from leaving the
by the court country except upon approval of the court. On May 25, 1995,
petitioner was conditionally arraigned pleading not guilty to
FACTS: January 12, 1990, a complaint was filed by the Office of the Information. In the meantime, in a Memorandum dated
the Solicitor General before the Presidential Commission on October 22, 1995, Special Prosecution Officer Victorio U.
Good Government (PCGG), petitioner, former Administrator of Tabanguil found no probable cause to warrant the filing
the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA), and the former against petitioner and recommended the dismissal of the case.
members of the PCA Governing Board, petitioner among them, There commendation for dismissal was approved by the
for violation of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Honorable Ombudsman on November 15, 1996. On December
Corrupt Practices Act for having conspired and confederated 13, 1996 petitioner filed an Urgent Motion To Dismiss alleging
together and taking undue advantage of their public positions that with the reversal of the earlier findings of the Ombudsman
and/or using their powers; authority, influence, connections or of probable cause, there was therefore nothing on record
relationship with the former President Ferdinand E. Marcos before the respondent Sandiganbayan which would warrant
and former First Lady, Imelda Romualdez-Marcos without the issuance of a warrant of arrest and the assumption of
authority, granted a donation in the amount of Two Million jurisdiction over the instant case.
Pesos (P2,000,000.00) to the Philippine Coconut Producers
Federation (COCOFED), a private entity, using PCA special ISSUES:
fund, thereby giving COCOFED unwarranted benefits, WON the warrant of arrest issued by respondent
advantage and preference through manifest partiality, evident Sandiganbayan is null and void, or should now be lifted if
bad faith and gross inexcusable negligence to the grave (sic) initially valid? YES
and prejudice of the Filipino people and to the Republic of the
Philippines. WON the Sandiganbayan still acquired jurisdiction over the
person of the petitioner? YES
Subsequently, however, the Court ruled that all proceedings in
the preliminary investigation conducted by the PCGG were null RULING:
and void and the PCGG was directed to transmit the
Sandiganbayan had two pieces of documents to consider when
complaints and records of the case to the Office of the
it resolved to issue the warrant of arrest against the accused:
Ombudsman for appropriate action.
a. the Resolution dated June 2, 1992 of the Panel of
In a Resolution dated June 2, 1992, the panel of investigators Investigators of the Office of the Ombudsman recommending
recommended the filling of an Information for violation of the filing of the Information and b. the Memorandum dated
Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. Resolution dated June 2, 1992 June 16, 1995 of the Office of the Special Prosecutor denying
was referred by Assistant Ombudsman Abelardo L. the existence of a prejudicial question which will warrant the
suspension of the criminal case. The Sandiganbayan had court, the former being almost invariably incomplete and
nothing more to support its resolution. oftentimes inaccurate.

The Sandiganbayan failed to abide by the constitutional More importantly, we find nothing in the direct or cross-
mandate of Personally determining the existence of probable examination of Yu to establish that he gave any money to
cause before issuing a warrant of arrest. The 2 cited document Fukuzume or transacted business with him with respect to the
above were the product of somebody else’s determination, subject aluminum scrap wires inside or within the premises of
insufficient to support a finding of probable cause by the the Intercontinental Hotel in Makati, or anywhere in Makati for
Sandiganbayan. that matter. Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of
jurisdiction. Citing Uy vs. Court of Appeals: 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.
FUKUZUME V. PEOPLE
The crime was alleged in the Information as having been
FACTS: Sometime in July 1991, Yu, a businessman engaged in committed in Makati. However, aside from the sworn
buying and selling aluminum scrap wires, accompanied by statement executed by Yu, the prosecution presented no other
Jovate, went to the house of Fukuzume in Parañaque. Jovate evidence, testimonial or documentary, to corroborate Yu’s
introduced Fukuzume to Yu telling the latter that Fukuzume is sworn statement or to prove that any of the above-
from Furukawa Electric Corporation and that he has at his enumerated elements of the offense charged was committed
disposal aluminum scrap wires. Fukuzume confirmed this in Makati. From the foregoing, it is evident that the
information and told Yu that the scrap wires belong to prosecution failed to prove that Fukuzume committed the
Furukawa but they are under the care of NAPOCOR. Believing crime of estafa in Makati or that any of the essential
Fukuzume’s representation to be true, Yu agreed to buy the ingredients of the offense took place in the said city. Hence,
aluminum scrap wires from Fukuzume. This transaction later the judgment of the trial court convicting Fukuzume of the
turned uneventful as Fukuzume failed to comply his crime of estafa should be set aside for want of jurisdiction,
undertaking to return Yu’s money when Yu was refused by without prejudice, however, to the filing of appropriate
NAPOCOR, thus, prompting Yu to file an estafa case. charges with the court of competent jurisdiction.

Upon arraignment, Fukuzume pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued,


finding the accused guilty as charged. Aggrieved by the trial
court’s decision, he appealed to CA but CA affirmed the trial
courts’ decision modifying only the penalty, hence, the
CUDIA V. COURT OF APPEALS
petition before the SC.
Facts:
ISSUE: WON the trial court of Makati has jurisdiction over the
offense charged Renato Cudia was arrested on June 28, 1989 in Mabalacat,
Pampanga for the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms and
RULING: SC answered on the negative. We agree with
Ammunition. He was brought to Sto. Domingo, Angeles City
Fukuzume’s contention that the CA erred in ruling that the RTC
which a preliminary investigation was conducted and as a
of Makati has jurisdiction over the offense charged.
result the City Prosecutor filed an information against him. The
The CA ruled on the basis of the sworn statement of Yu filed case against him was raffled to Branch 60 of the Regional Trial
with the NBI and the affidavit subscribed by Fukuzume. With Court of Angeles City. Upon his arraignment, the court called
respect to the sworn statement of Yu, which was presented in the attention of the parties and contrary to the information,
evidence by the prosecution, it is clear that he alleged that he Renatio Cudia had committed the offense in Mabalacat and
gave Fukuzume the amount of P50,000.00 at the not in Angeles City. Thus the judge ordered that the case
Intercontinental Hotel in Makati. However, we agree with should be assigned to a court involving crimes committed
Fukuzume’s contention that Yu testified during his direct outside Angeles City consequently it was assigned to Branch 56
examination that he gave the amount of P50,000.00 to of the Angeles City RTC. However, the Provincial Prosecutor of
Fukuzume in the latter’s house. It is not disputed that Pampanga filed an information charging Renato Cudio with the
Fukuzume’s house is located in Parañaque. same crime and it was likewise assigned to Branch 56 of the
Angeles City RTC which resulted into two Information filed
Settled is the rule that whenever there is inconsistency with the same crime. This prompted the City Prosecutor to file
between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court, a Motion to Dismiss/ Withdraw the Information which the trial
the testimony commands greater weight considering that court granted. Renato filed a Motion to Quash the criminal
affidavits taken ex parte are inferior to testimony given in case filed by the Provincial Prosecutor on the ground that his
continued prosecution for the offense of illegal possession of Philippine navy and designated as Assistant Chief of Naval Staff
firearms and ammunition for which he had been arraigned in for Comptrollership was charged with estafa through
the first criminal case, and which had been dismissed despite falsification of official documents and violation of RA 3019. The
his opposition would violate his right not to be put twice in petitioner filed a motion to quash, arguing that the
jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. The trial court Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the offense charged
denied the motion to quash; hence, petitioner raised the issue and that the Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor had no
to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, stating that there authority to file the offense.
was no double jeopardy, dismissed the same on the ground
The court ruled that:
that the petition could not have been convicted under the first
information as the same was defective. Petitioner's motion for 1. It is the court-martial, not the Sandiganbayan, which has
reconsideration was denied; hence, this appeal. jurisdiction to try petitioner since he was a regular officer of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and fell squarely under
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred when it
Article 2 of the Articles of War mentioned in Section 1(b) of
found that the City Prosecutor of Angeles City did not have the
P.D. 1850, “Providing for the trial by courts-martial of
authority to file the first information
members of the Integrated National Police and further
RULING: No. It is plainly apparent that the City Prosecutor of defining the jurisdiction of courts-martial over members of the
Angeles City had no authority to file the first information, the Armed Forces of the Philippines”
offense having been committed in the Municipality of
2. As to the violations of Republic Act No. 3019, the
Mabalacat, which is beyond his jurisdiction. Presidential
petitioner does not fall within the “rank” requirement stated
Decree No.1275, in relation to Section 9 of the Administrative
in Section 4 of the Sandiganbayan Law, thus, exclusive
Code of 1987, pertinently provides that:
jurisdiction over petitioner is vested in the regular courts , as
Sec. 11. The provincial or the city fiscal shall: amended by R.A. No. 8249, which states that “In cases where
none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to
b) Investigate and/or cause to be investigated all charges of
Salary Grade ‘27’ or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic
crimes, misdemeanors and violations of all penal laws and
Act No. 6758, or military and PNP officers mentioned above,
ordinances within their respective jurisdictions and have the
exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the
necessary information or complaint prepared or made against
proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal
the persons accused. In the conduct of such investigations he
trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be,
or his assistants shall receive the sworn statements or take oral
pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas
evidence of witnesses summoned by subpoena for the
Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.”
purpose. It is thus the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga, not
the City Prosecutor, who should prepare information for In this connection, it is the prosecutor, not the Ombudsman,
offenses committed within Pampanga but outside of Angeles who has the authority to file the corresponding information/s
City. An information, when required to be filed by a public against petitioner in the regional trial court. The Ombudsman
prosecuting officer, cannot be filed by another. It must be exercises prosecutorial powers only in cases cognizable by the
exhibited or presented by the prosecuting attorney or Sandiganbayan.
someone authorized by law. If not, the court does not acquire
In February 20, 2000, a motion for clarification which in fact
jurisdiction. In fine, there must have been a valid and sufficient
appeared to be a partial motion for reconsideration was filed
complaint or information in the former prosecution. As the
by the Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor filed, which
fiscal had no authority to file the information, the dismissal of
was denied.
the first information would not be a bar to petitioner's
subsequent prosecution. As the first information was fatally The instant case is a Motion for Further Clarification filed by
defective for lack of authority of the officer filing it, the instant Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto of the Court's ruling in its
petition must fail for failure to comply with all the requisites decision dated August 9, 1999 and resolution dated February
necessary to invoke double jeopardy. Thus Motion for 22, 2000.
Reconsideration is DENIED.
ISSUE: Whether or not the prosecutory power of the
Ombudsman extends only to cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan and that the Ombudsman has no authority to
prosecute cases falling within the jurisdiction of regular courts.
UY V. SANDIGANBAYAN RULING: No. The Ombudsman is clothed with authority to
FACTS: In Uy vs Sandiganbayan [G.R. Nos. 105965-70. August conduct preliminary investigation and to prosecute all criminal
9, 1999], petitioner Uy, who was Deputy Comptroller of the cases involving public officers and employees, not only those
within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, but those within Cuyos’ verbal motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence,
the jurisdiction of the regular courts as well. The power to the present petition for certiorari.
investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent Municipal Court of San
Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified. It pertains to any act
Fernando, Pampanga has jurisdiction to try the case against
or omission of any public officer or employee when such act or
Cuyos
omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.
The law does not make a distinction between cases cognizable RULING: The Court agrees with the position of the Solicitor
by the Sandiganbayan and those cognizable by regular courts. Geeral that the Municipal Court has no jurisdiction to try the
It has been held that the clause "any illegal act or omission of present case. The case at bar involves a complex crime of
any public official" is broad enough to embrace all kinds of homicide, multiple serious physical injuries and damage to
malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance committed by property resulting from reckless imprudence. Art. 365., par. 2
public officers and employees during their tenure of office. of the Revised Penal Code provides that the penalty imposable
upon petitioner, if found guilty of homicide through reckless
The exercise by the Ombudsman of his primary jurisdiction
imprudence, would be prision correctional in its medium and
over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan is not
maximum periods. At the time the complaint was filed, the
incompatible with the discharge of his duty to investigate and
Municipal Court had jurisdiction to impose a penalty of
prosecute other offenses committed by public officers and
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine not
employees. The prosecution of offenses committed by public
exceeding P6,000.00 or both. Thus, because of the penalty for
officers and employees is one of the most important functions
damage to property through reckless imprudence or
of the Ombudsman. In passing RA 6770, the Congress
negligence as provided in Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code
deliberately endowed the Ombudsman with such power to
is, “a fine ranging from the amount equal to the value of
make him a more active and effective agent of the people in
damages to three times such value, the case must be
ensuring accountability in public office.
forwarded to the Court of First Instance. Art. 365 simply means
Even a perusal of the law (PD 1630) originally creating the that if there is only damage to property, the amount fixed shall
Office of the Ombudsman then (to be known as the be imposed, but if there is also physical injuries, there should
Tanodbayan), and the amendatory laws issued subsequent be an additional penalty for the latter. The applicable rule on
thereto will show that, at its inception, the Office of the allocation of jurisdiction on cases involving cases of reckless
Ombudsman was already vested with the power to investigate imprudence resulting in homicide or physical injuries is
and prosecute civil and criminal cases before the summarized by Justice Barrera. Barreda stated that in such
Sandiganbayan and even the regular courts. cases, Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code is applicable, but there
may be cases when the imposable penalty is within the
jurisdiction of the Municipal Court, while the fine is under the
jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. Since the information
cannot be split into two, the jurisdiction of the court is
CUYOS V. GARCIA determined by the fine imposable for the damage to property
resulting from the reckless imprudence. The maximum fine
FACTS: Petitioner Alfredo Cuyos was charged with homicide imposable for the crime in this case is P54,000.00 and the
with multiple serious physical injuries and damage to property maximum imprisonment for homicide is six (6) years.
through reckless imprudence before the Municipal Court of Therefore, the criminal charge falls outside the jurisdiction of
San Fernando, Pampanga. Cuyos entered a plea of not guilty at the Municipal Court and within the jurisdiction of the Regional
the arraignment and the judge set the case for trial, but before Trial Court.
it could commence, petitioner filed a Motion to Remand the
Case to the Court of First Instance. Cuyos claimed that there is
lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Municipal Court and
contended that the damages suffered by the Volkswagen he
hit amounted to P18,000.00. He argued that under Art. 365,
MOBILIA PRODUCTS V. UMEZAWA
par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime would carry a fine
in an amount ranging from the amount of the damage to three FACTS: Umezawa, then the President and General Manager of
times the value of the damage alleged (i.e. 3 x P18,000.00 = MPI, organized another company with his wife Kimiko, and his
P54,000.00). Under S87 of the Judiciary Art of 1948, the sister, Mitsuyo Yaguchi, to be known as Astem Philippines
Municipal Court of Pampanga only has jurisdiction over Corporation, without knowledge of the Board of Directors of
offenses punishable by a fine not exceeding P 6,000.00. Cuyos MPI. The said company would be engaged in the same business
filed an Urgent Motion to Postpose the Trial. The municipal as Mobilia. Umezawa stole products from MPI amounting to
judge denied the motion to transfer and set the case for trial. P3,219,875.00. MPI and public prosecutor filed criminal
complaints against Umezawa. The trial court asserted that the party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure
controversy involving the criminal cases was between affirmative relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or
Umezawa and the other stockholders of MPI. It also held that failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same
the SEC, not the trial court, had jurisdiction over intra- jurisdiction. In the case just cited, by way of explaining the rule,
corporate controversies. CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC that it was further said that the question whether the court had
the dispute between Umezawa and the other stockholders and jurisdiction either of the subject-matter of the action or of the
officers over the implementation of the MPI’s standard parties was not important in such cases because the party is
procedure is intra-corporate in nature; hence, within the barred from such conduct not because the judgment or order
exclusive jurisdiction of the SEC. The petitioner MPI filed the of the court is valid and conclusive as an adjudication, but for
instant petition for review on certiorari. the reason that such a practice cannot be tolerated obviously
for reasons of public policy.
ISSUE: WON CA is correct
ISSUE: WON petitioner is barred for raising the issue of lack of
RULING: Patently, then, based on the material allegations of
jurisdiction over the subject matter because estoppel already
the information, the court a quo has exclusive jurisdiction over
set in
the crimes charged. CA erred in holding that the dispute
between it and the respondent is intra-corporate in nature; RULING: No. The Office of the Solicitor General's reliance on
hence, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the SEC. As gleaned the said ruling is misplaced. The doctrine laid down in the Tijam
from the material allegations of the information, the RTC had case is an exception to and not the general rule. Estoppel
exclusive jurisdiction over the crimes charged. According to attached to the party assailing the jurisdiction of the court, as
Section 20 of B.P. Blg. 129 Regional Trial Courts shall exercise it was the same party who sought recourse in the said forum.
exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the In the case at bar, appellant cannot in anyway be said to have
exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body, except invoked the jurisdiction of the trial court. Thus, we apply the
those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent general rule that jurisdiction is vested by law and cannot be
jurisdiction of the body, except those now falling under the conferred or waived by the parties. Even on appeal and even if
exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter. Case law has it the reviewing parties did not raise the issue of jurisdiction, the
that in order to determine the jurisdiction of the court in reviewing court is not precluded from ruling that the lower
criminal cases, the complaint or information must be court had no jurisdiction over the case: The operation of the
examined for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the principle of estoppel on the question of jurisdiction seemingly
facts set out therein and the prescribed period provided for by depends upon whether the lower court had jurisdiction or not.
law are within the jurisdiction of the court, where the said If it had no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and decided
information or complaint is filed. It is settled that the upon the theory it had jurisdiction, the parties are not barred,
jurisdiction of the court in criminal cases is determined by the on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for the same "must
allegations of the complaint or information and not by the exist as a matter of law, and may not be conferred by consent
findings based on the evident of the court after trial. of the parties or by estoppel. Estoppel in questioning the
Jurisdiction is conferred only the Constitution or by the law in jurisdiction of the court is only brought to bear when not to do
force at the time of the filing of the information or complaint. so will subvert the ends of justice.
Once jurisdiction is vested in the court, it is retained up to the
end of the litigation.

VALDEPENAS V. PEOPLE

DOCTRINE: Jurisdiction over the person of an accused is


PANGALINAN V. COURT OF APPEALS
acquired upon either his apprehension, with or without
FACTS: Mila Pangilinan was charged and convicted of the warrant, or his submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
Crime of Estafa before the RTC, a crime cognizable by MTC. She
FACTS: Appeal by Valdepenas from the decision of CA,
brought the case to CA for new trial but the same was denied.
affirming that the CFI Cagayan, convicting him of the crime of
In her Petition for Review on Certiorari to the SC, she alleged
abduction with consent, and sentencing him to an
that the Decision of the trial court is null and void for lack of
indeterminate penalty and to imdemnify Ester Ulsano. Ester
jurisdiction over the crime charged. Relying in the landmark
Ulsano, 17 years old, assisted by her mother filed forcible
case of Tijam vs. Sibanghanoy, the Office of the Solicitor
abduction with rape against Valdepenas. CFI found him guilty
General contends that the appellant is barred from raising the
as charged. CA modified to abduction with consent.
issue of jurisdiction, estoppels having already set in. In the
Valdepenas filed an MR and MNT on the finding of minority at
aforementioned case, the Court ruled: It has been held that a
time of occurrence which was granted but on retrial the prior
CA ruling was affirmed. Second MR based on lack of FACTS: On 3 August 1973, Samson Suan, Alex Potot, Rogelio
jurisdiction of CFI was denied so he filed petition for certiorari. Mula, Fernando Cargando, Rogelio Baguio and Teodoro de la
Petitioner’s theory is that no complaint for abduction with Vega, Jr., were charged with the crime of murder. The accused
consent has been filed and the lower court acquired no were arraigned and each of them pleaded not guilty to the
jurisdiction over his person or over the crime of abduction with crime charged. Following the arraignment, the judge, Hon.
consent and had, therefore, no authority to convict him. Ramon E. Nazareno, set the hearing of the case for 18
September 1973 at 1:00 p.m. All the accused were duly
ISSUE: WON CA erred in not reversing CFI for lack of
informed of this. Before the scheduled date of the first hearing
jurisdiction over the person of the accused and that subject
the de la Vega escaped from his detention center and on the
matter of the action for the offense of abduction with consent
said date, failed to appear in court. This prompted the fiscals
RULING: No. Jurisdiction over the person of an accused is handling the case (Fiscal Celso M. Gimenez and Federico B.
acquired upon either his apprehension, with or without Mercado) to file a motion with the lower court to proceed with
warrant, or his submission to the jurisdiction of the court. In the hearing of the case against all the accused praying that de
the case at bar, it is not claimed that petitioner had not been la Vega, Jr. be tried in absentia invoking the application of
apprehended or had not submitted himself to the jurisdiction Section 19, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution. Pursuant to the
of the court. Indeed, although brought before the bar of justice above-written provision, the lower court proceeded with the
as early as January 25, 1956, first, before the then justice of the trial of the case but nevertheless gave de ala Vega the
peace court of Piat, then before the CFI of Cagayan, later opportunity to take the witness stand the moment he shows
before the CA, thereafter, back to CFI, and then, again, before up in court. After due trial, or on 6 November 1973, the lower
the CA, never, within the period of six (6) years had the court rendered a decision dismissing the case against the other
questioned the judicial authority of any of these three (3) five accused (Suan, et. al.) while holding in abeyance the
courts over his person. He is deemed waived whatever proceedings against de la Vega. On 16 November 1973,
objection he might have has to the jurisdiction over his person, Gimenez and Mercado filed a Motion for Reconsideration
and, hence, to have submitted himself to the Court’s questioning the dispositive portion of the court's decision on
jurisdiction. His behavior and every single one of the steps the ground that it will render nugatory the constitutional
taken by him before said courts – particularly the motions provision on "trial in absentia" cited earlier. However, this was
therein filed by him – implied, not merely a submission to the denied by the lower court in an Order dated 22 November
jurisdiction thereof, but, also, that he urged the courts to 1973. Gimenez and Mercado filed a petition for certiorari and
exercise the authority therof over his person. mandamus with the Supreme Court.

Abduction with consent – jurisdiction over a given crime, not ISSUE: Whether judgment upon an accused tried should be in
vested by law upon a particular court, may not be conferred abeyance pending the appearance of the accused before the
thereto by the parties involved in the offense. court.

In the case at bar, the offended woman and her mother have RULING: The second part of Section 19, Article IV of the 1973
negated such preference by filing the complaint and going Constitution provides that a "trial in absentia" may be had
through the trials and tribulations concomitant with the when the following requisites are present:
proceedings in this case, before several courts, for the last ten
(1) that there has been an arraignment
(10) years. Petitioner says that the complaint was for forcible
abduction, not abduction with consent; but, as already (2) that the accused has been notified;
adverted to, the latter is included in the former.
(3) that he fails to appear and his failure to do so is unjustified.
This allegation implies that Ester is a minor living under patria
Herein, all the above conditions were attendant calling for a
protestas, and, hence, single, thus leading to the presumption
trial in absentia. De la Vega was arraigned on 22 August 1973
that she is a virgin. She was taken by force from their dwelling
and in the said arraignment he pleaded not guilty. He was also
when her mother was away and brought to a secluded area
informed of the scheduled hearings set on September 18 and
and raped.
19, 1973 and this is evidenced by his signature on the notice
CA and CFI affirmed. Cost against Valdepenas. issued by the lower court. It was also proved by a certified copy
of the Police Blotter that de la Vega escaped from his detention
center. No explanation for his failure to appear in court in any
of the scheduled hearings was given. Even the trial court
considered his absence unjustified.
GIMENEZ V. NAZARENO
The lower court correctly proceeded with the reception of the
evidence of the prosecution and the other accused in the
absence of de la Vega, but it erred when it suspended the Presiding Judge Tumaliuan issued a warrant of arrest against
proceedings as to de la Vega and rendered a decision as to the the petitioners and SPO2 Maderal.
other accused only. Upon the termination of a trial in absentia,
Then, the petitioners filed an urgent motion to complete
the court has the duty to rule upon the evidence presented in
preliminary investigation, to reinvestigate, and to recall or
court. The court need not wait for the time until the accused
quash the warrant of arrest. In the hearing of the urgent
who escape from custody finally decides to appear in court to
motion, Judge Tumaliuan noted the absence of the petitioners
present his evidence and cross-examine the witnesses against
and issued a Joint order denying the urgent motion on the
him. To allow the delay of proceedings for this purpose is to
ground that since the court did not acquire jurisdiction over
render ineffective the constitutional provision on trial in
their persons, the motion cannot be properly heard by the
absentia. Still, the accused remain to be presumed innocent, a
court.
judgment of conviction must still be based upon the evidence
presented in court, and such evidence must prove him guilty ISSUE:
beyond reasonable doubt. There can be no violation of due
process since the accused was given the opportunity to be Whether or not an accused can seek judicial relief if he does
heard. By his failure to appear during the trial of which he had not submit his person to the jurisdiction of the court
notice, he virtually waived the rights to cross-examine and to
Whether or not a motion to quash a warrant of arrest requires
present evidence on his behalf. Thus, an escapee who has been
jurisdiction over the person of the accused
duly tried in absentia waives his right to present evidence on
his own behalf and to confront and cross-examine witnesses RULING: No, one who seeks affirmative relief is deemed to
who testified against him. have submitted to the Jurisdiction of the Court. Adjudication
of a motion to quash a warrant of arrest requires neither
DOCTRINE: The trial against the fugitives, just like those of the
jurisdiction over the person of the accused, nor custody of law
others, should have been brought to its ultimate conclusion.
over the body of the accused.
Thereafter, the trial court had the duty to rule on the evidence
presented by the prosecution against all the accused and to Citing Santiago v. Vasquez, there is a distinction between the
render its judgment accordingly. It should not wait for the custody of the law and jurisdiction over the person. Custody of
fugitives’ re-appearance or re-arrest. They were deemed to the law is required before the Court can act upon the
have waived their right to present evidence on their own application for bail, but is not required for the adjudication of
behalf and to confront and cross-examine the witnesses who other relief sought by the dependant where by mere
testified against them. application, thereof, constitutes a waiver of the defence of lack
of jurisdiction over the person accused.

MIRANDA V. TULIAO
PADERANGA V. DRILON
FACTS: On March 1996, two burnt cadavers were discovered in
Ramon, Isabela which were later identified as the bodies of FACTS: Definition of Preliminary Examination – Generally
Vicente Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao, son of the private inquisitorial, often only means of discovering the persons who
respondent Virgilio Tuliao who is now under the witness may be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the fiscal
protection program. to prepare his complaint or information.

Two Informations for murder were filed against 5 police The institution of a criminal action depends upon the sound
officers including SPO2 Maderal in the RTC of Santiago City. discretion of the Fiscal. He has the quasi-judicial discretion to
The venue was later transferred to the RTC of Manila. The RTC determine wither or not a criminal case should be filed in
convicted the accused and sentenced them two counts of Court.
reclusion perpetua except SPO2 Maderal who was yet to be
arraigned at that time being at large. Upon automatic review, GENERAL RULE: Injunction will not be granted to restrain a
the SC acquitted the accused on the ground of reasonable criminal prosecution
doubt. Exception (Brocka vs Enrile):
In Sept. 1999, Maderal was arrested. He executed a sworn 1. Afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights
confession and identified the petitioners as the ones of the accused
responsible for the death of the victims, so, Tuliao filed a
criminal complaint for murder against the petitioners. Acting 2. Necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to
avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions
3. When there is a prejudicial question prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal. 17 The
institution of a criminal action depends upon the sound
4. When the acts of the officers are without or excess of
discretion of the fiscal. The reason for placing the criminal
authority
prosecution under the direction and control of the fiscal is to
5. Double jeopardy is clearly apparent prevent malicious or unfounded prosecution by private
persons. 19 It cannot be controlled by the complainant.
6. When the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense
However, the action of the fiscal or prosecutor is not without
7. A case of persecution rather than prosecution any limitation or control. The same is subject to the approval
of the provincial or city fiscal or the chief state prosecutor as
8. The charges are manifestly false and motivated by
the case maybe and it may be elevated for review to the
vengeance
Secretary of Justice who has the power to affirm, modify or
9. Clearly no Prima Facie case against the accused reverse the action or opinion of the fiscal. Consequently, the
Secretary of Justice may direct that a motion to dismiss the
The right of the accused to ask clarificatory questions is not case be filed in Court or otherwise, that an information be filed
ABSOLUTE. in Court.
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE required in preliminary investigation The filing of a complaint or information in Court initiates a
is such such evidence sufficient to “engender” a well-founded criminal action. The Court thereby acquires jurisdiction over
belief as to the fact of the omission of a crime and respondents the case, which is the authority to hear and determine the
probable guilt. case. The preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal for
the purpose of determining whether a prima facie case exists
warranting the prosecution of the accused is terminated upon
the filing of the information in the proper court.

CRESPO V. MOGUL

FACTS: Petitioner Mario Crespo was accused for Estafa in the


Circuit Criminal Court of Lucena City. When the case was set
for arraignment, the accused filed a motion for defer ISIP V. PEOPLE
arraignment on the ground that there was a pending petition FACTS: Petitioner Manuel Isip was charged with Estafa before
for review filed with the Secretary of Justice. However, Justice the RTC of Cavite City, after he allegedly received from
Mogul denied the motion, but the arraignment was deferred complainant, Atty. Jose, a seven-carat diamond men’s ring
in a much later date to afford time for the petitioner to elevate valued at P200,000.00, for the purpose of selling the same on
the mater to the appellate court. commission basis and to deliver the proceeds of the sale
The accused filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with thereof or return the same if not sold. Petitioner denied
prayer for a preliminary writ of injunction to the CA. The CA receiving the jewelry and failed to return the ring or proceeds
ordered the trial court to refrain from proceeding with the of the sale even after repeated demand. On the other hand,
arraignment until further orders of the Court. Undersecretary petitioner’s wife, Marietta Isip, was indicted before the same
of Justice, Hon. Catalino Macaraig Jr., resolved the petition for court for 7 counts of Violation of BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law)
review reversed the resolution of the office of the Provincial after she issued checks in payment for assorted pieces of
Fiscal and directed the Fiscal to move for immediate dismissal jewelry she received from Atty. Jose which were subsequently
of the information filed against the accused. Judge Mogul dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. The complainant
denied the motion for dismissal of the case ad set the alleged that the foregoing transactions happened at his
arraignment. The accused then filed a petition for Certiorari, ancestral house in Cavite while he was on leave of absence
prohibition and mandamus with petition for the issuance of from the Bureau of Customs. In defense, petitioner averred
preliminary writ of prohibition and/or temporary restraining that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case because he and
order in the CA. The CA dismissed the order and lifted the his wife had transactions with the complainant at the latter’s
restraining order. residence located at Plaza Tower Condominium in Manila as
both of them were also Manila residents. Despite this, the trial
ISSUE: Whether the trial court may refuse to grant a motion to court found them guilty of the said allegations. Upon appeal to
dismiss filed by the Fiscal under orders from the Secretary of the CA, Marietta Isip died before any decision could have been
Justice and insists on arraignment and trial on the merits. promulgated thereby extinguishing her criminal and civil
liability. However, the CA still affirmed Manuel Isip’s conviction
RULING: It is a cardinal principle that all criminal actions either
for estafa, hence this appeal.
commenced by complaint or by information shall be
ISSUE: Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the offense Venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases. It can neither be
imputed to petitioner and for which he was convicted. waived nor subjected to stipulation. The right venue must exist
as a matter of law. Thus, for territorial jurisdiction to attach,
RULING: Yes. The complainant had sufficiently shown that the
the criminal action must be instituted and tried in the proper
transaction took place in his home in Cavite. Since it has been
court of the municipality, city, or province where the offense
shown that venue was properly laid, it is now petitioner’s task
was committed or where any of its essential ingredients took
to prove otherwise. In the instant case, petitioner failed to
place. The Informations filed with the RTC of La Trinidad state
establish by sufficient and competent evidence that the
that the crimes were committed in the victim and the
transaction happened in Manila due to the following reasons:
offender’s house in City Limit, Tuding, Municipality of Itogon,
a. Even if petitioner lives in Manila and the issued checks were
Province of Benguet. This allegation conferred territorial
drawn against banks in Manila or Makati, it still does not prove
jurisdiction over the subject offenses on the RTC of La Trinidad,
that the transactions did not happen in Cavite. Distance will
Benguet. The testimonies of Mila and Des as well as the
not prevent any person from going to a distant place where he
affidavit of arrest point to this fact.
can procure goods he can sell to earn a living. b. It is settled
that when the RTC’s findings have been affirmed by the Clearly, Taroy’s uncorroborated assertion that the subject
appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and offenses took place in Baguio City is not entitled to belief.
binding upon this Court. Besides, he admitted during the pre-trial in the case that it was
the RTC of La Trinidad that had jurisdiction to hear the case.

Taken altogether, that RTC’s jurisdiction to hear the case is


beyond dispute.
PEOPLE V. TAROY

FACTS: Mila is Taroy’s wife. Mila has an eldest daughter from


her first marriage named Des. The couple lived with Mila’s
children in Benguet at the boundary of Baguio City. According BONIFACIO V. RTC OF MAKATI
to Des, when she was still 10 years old, Taroy raped her when
FACTS: Petitioners Bonifacio et al were charged with the crime
she was alone cleaning their house. She was told not to tell
of libel after private respondent Gimenez, on behalf of
anyone lest Mila and her siblings would suffer harm. This
Yuchengco family and Malayan Insurance Co., filed a criminal
incident was followed by another sexual abuse on the next
complaint before the Makati City Prosecutor for libel under
year. This time it occurred inside Des’ bedroom where Taroy
Article 355 in relation to Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code.
pointed a knife at her and ordered her to undress and submit
to his sexual desires. Des only confided the story to her mother The complaint alleged that petitioners, together with several
and aunt four years later. They accompanied her to the NBI to John Does, publicly and maliciously with intention of attacking
complain. She also underwent medical examination where it the honesty, virtue, honor and integrity, character and
was revealed that there was indeed a history of previous blunt reputation of Malayan Insurance Co. Inc., and Yuchengco
force caused by an insertion of an erect penis. The public family for exposing them to public hatred and contempt, and
prosecutor charged Taroy with two counts of before the RTC published in the said website http://www.pepcoalition.com a
of La Trinidad, Benguet. Correspondingly, the RTC convicted defamatory article persuading the public to remove their
Taroy of the offense and penalized him to suffer reclusion investments and policies from the said company. This is after
perpetua. Taroy challenged the Benguet RTC’s jurisdiction over the petitioners filed to seek their redress for their pecuniary
the crimes charged contending that their residence where the loss under the policies they obtained from the company.
alleged offenses took place was at the boundary of Baguio City. Makati City Prosecutor, after finding probable cause to indict
the petitioners, filed separate information against them.
The RTC held, however, that Taroy’s testimony that their
residence was in Baguio City did not strip the court of its Petitioners filed before the respondent RTC of Makati a Motion
jurisdiction since he waived the jurisdictional requirement. The to Quash on the grounds that it failed to vest jurisdiction on
Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC. It held that the Makati RTC; the acts complained of in the Information are
the prosecution has sufficiently established the jurisdiction of not punishable by law since internet libel is not covered by
the RTC. Hence, this appeal. Article 353 of the RPC. Petitioners maintained that the
Information failed to allege a particular place within the trial
ISSUE: WON the RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet has jurisdiction to
courts jurisdiction where the subject article was printed and
hear the rape cases against Taroy.
first published or that the offended parties resided in Makati
RULING: Appeal DISMISSED. at the time the alleged defamatory material was printed and
first published, and the prosecution erroneously laid the venue
of the case in the place where the offended party accessed the
internet-published article.

ISSUE: Whether petitioners’ Motion to Quash due to lack of


jurisdiction is valid

RULING: Yes. 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. 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.

The Amended Information in the case opted to lay the venue


by stating that the offending article was first published and
accessed by the private complainant in Makati City. In other
words, it considered the phrase to be equivalent to the
requisite allegation of printing and first publication. This is
wrong. For the court to hold that the Amended Information
sufficiently vested jurisdiction in the courts of Makati simply
because the defamatory article was accessed therein would
open the floodgates to the libel suit being filed in all other
locations where the pepcoalition website is likewise accessed
or capable of being accessed. This goes against the purpose as
to why Republic Act No. 4363 was enacted. It lays down
specific rules as to the venue of the criminal action so as to
prevent the offended party in written defamation cases from
inconveniencing the accused by means of out-of-town libel
suits, meaning complaints filed in remote municipal courts.

IN FINE, the public respondent committed grave abuse of


discretion in denying petitioners motion to quash the
Amended Information.