To everyone, especially my fellow lawyers, here is another good read on criminal law. This is something elementary but may sometimes be overlooked like in the case I am to discuss.

A case for estafa was filed against the accused with the court in Makati City. He was unable to participate in the trial and, thus, was convicted. He filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the court had no jurisdiction to try the case. His reason was that there was nothing in the complaint that alleged where the crime was committed in Makati. There being none, naturally, the Makati court could not assume jurisdiction over the case. The court thumbed down his argument and stood by its ruling. On appeal, the Court of Appeals sustained his conviction. Convinced that he was correct and undaunted by the circumstances, he asked the Highest Tribunal to rule on the issue he stood by with conviction. Lo and behold, the Supreme Court sided with him.

Thus said the Highest Court:

“The overreaching consideration in this case is the principle that, in criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional. A court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense committed outside its limited territory.

“In Isip v. People, this Court explained: The 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 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. 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.

“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.

In a criminal case, the prosecution must not only prove that the offense was committed, it must also prove the identity of the accused.

“That the offense was committed in Makati City was alleged in the information as follows: That on or about the 23rd day of December 1999, in the City of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, received in trust from ELIZABETH LUCIAJA the amount of P150,000.00… Ordinarily, this statement would have been sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the RTC of Makati. However, the Affidavit of Complaint executed by Elizabeth does not contain any allegation as to where the offense was committed.

“It provides in part 4. THAT on 23 December 1999, [Elizabeth] personally entrusted to ATTY. HECTOR TREÑAS the sum of P150,000 to be expended as agreed and ATTY. HECTOR TREÑAS issued to me a receipt, a photocopy of which is hereto attached as Annex “B”; 5. THAT despite my several follow-ups with ATTY. HECTOR TREÑAS, the latter failed to transfer the title of the aforesaid property to MRS. MARGARITA ALOCILJA. He also failed to pay the capital gains tax, documentary stamps, and BIR-related expenses. What ATTY. HECTOR TREÑAS accomplished was only the preparation of the Deed of Sale covering the aforesaid property.                                           

(To be continued)