David v.

Marquez DIGEST

Doctrine: (1) An alternative venue for criminal actions arising from illegal recruitment is the place of residence of
the offended party (Sec. 9, RA 8042).

(2) Generally, the prosecution cannot appeal or bring error proceedings from a judgment rendered in favor of the
defendant in a criminal case. Despite acquittal, however, the offended party or the accused may appeal, but only
with respect to the civil aspect of the decision.

ER: David approached Marquez in Kidapawan City for recruitment to work abroad and later on collected
processing fees. Marquez filed Informations for illegal recruitment and Estafa against David in the RTC of Manila. In
an MR, David questioned the validity of the Informations stating that RTC Manila did not have jurisdiction since the
alleged crimes occurred in Kidapawan City where it should have been filed. RTC Manila granted David’s MR.
Marquez filed a petition for certiorari in the CA, to which was granted. The SC held that RTC Manila had jurisdiction
over the case because Sec. 9 of RA 8042 provided an alternative venue for criminal actions arising from illegal
recruitment wherein it can be filed where the offended party resides (i.e. Manila: Marquez’s residence). The SC
also held that Marquez had legal personality to file the petition for certiorari in the CA even if generally, the
prosecution cannot appeal or bring error proceedings from a judgment rendered in favor of the defendant in a
criminal case. Despite acquittal, however, the offended party or the accused may appeal, but only with respect to
the civil aspect of the decision.

Facts:

Eileen David approached Glenda Marquez in Kidapawan City, and representing that she (David) could recruit her
(Marquez) to work abroad. Payment of placement fees and other expenses for the processing of Marquez's
application were given by Marquez upon David’s request. Marquez's application was, however, denied and worse,
the money that she put out was never returned.

David averred that it was physically impossible for her to commit the said acts because she was in Canada at the
time of the alleged recruitment. As to the money deposited in her account, David said that the money was coursed
through her to be given to her friend in Canada who processed Marquez’s application. David further argued before
the Prosecutor that assuming arguendo that the allegations of recruitment were true, the case should be filed in
Kidapawan City and not in Manila.

On December 9, 2008, two separate Informations were filed against David for Illegal Recruitment and Estafa,
respectively.

RTC Manila found that it had no jurisdiction to try the cases since the crimes of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa were
not committed in its territory but in Kidapawan City. It also issued an Order recalling the warrants of arrest issued
against the David.
Marquez filed an MR through the public prosecutor averring that while it appears in the POEA pro-forma
complaint affidavit that the alleged recruitment activities took place in Kidapawan City, it also appears in her
Reply- Affidavit, that she deposited certain amounts in several banks in Manila for the name and account of David
as payments for employment processing and placement fees. Thus, part of the essential elements of Illegal
Recruitment and Estafa took place in Manila. Section 9 of RA 8042 states that an illegal recruitment case may also
be filed with the RTC of the province or city where the offended party actually resides at the time of the
commission of the crime. Marquez averred that the records show that at the time of the incident up to the
present, she resides in Sampaloc, Manila.

RTC denied Marquez’s MR.

Marquez filed a petition for certiorari before the CA.

CA - On the issue of legal personality, Marquez, having an interest in the civil aspect of the case, thus, may le such
action in his/her name to question the decision or action of the respondent court on jurisdictional grounds.

On jurisdiction, the CA ruled that the RTC Manila has jurisdiction over the cases of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa,
citing Section 9 of RA 8042.

David files a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the decision of the CA.

Issue(s):

(1) W/N RTC Manila had jurisdiction over the case? – Yes.
(2) W/N Marquez had legal personality to file a petition for certiorari before the CA? – Yes.

Held:

(1) At the risk of being repetitive, Sec. 9 of RA 8042, however, fixed an alternative venue from that provided in
Section 15 (a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, i.e., a criminal action arising from illegal recruitment may also be
led where the offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense and that the court
where the criminal action is first led shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts.

Despite the clear provision of the law, the RTC of Manila declared that it has no jurisdiction to try the cases as the
Illegal Recruitment and Estafa were not committed in its territory but in Kidapawan City.

We are, thus, one with the CA in finding that the RTC of Manila committed grave abuse of discretion and in fact, a
palpable error, in ordering the quashal of the Informations. The express provision of the law is clear that the ling of
criminal actions arising from illegal recruitment before the RTC of the province or city where the offended party
actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense is allowed.

It has been found by both the RTC and the CA that the Marquez resides in Manila; hence, the filing of the case
before the RTC of Manila was proper.

(2) There is no question that, generally, the prosecution cannot appeal or bring error proceedings from a judgment
rendered in favor of the defendant in a criminal case due to the final and executory nature of a judgment of
acquittal and the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. Despite acquittal, however, the offended
party or the accused may appeal, but only with respect to the civil aspect of the decision

In all, since it is established that the RTC of Manila has jurisdiction over the Illegal Recruitment and Estafa cases,
and there being no violation of the double jeopardy doctrine, the prosecution of the case may still resume in the
trial court as held by the CA.