MAXIMINO VALDEPEAS, vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

WON The Court Acquires the persons of the accused?
Jurisdiction over the person of an accused is acquired upon either his apprehension, with or without warrant, or his
submission to the jurisdiction of the court. 16 In the case at bar, it is not claimed that petitioner had not been
apprehended or had not submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. Indeed, although brought before the bar of
justice as early as January 25, 1956, first, before the then justice of the peace court of Piat, then before the court of
first instance of Cagayan, later before the Court of Appeals, thereafter back before said court of first instance, and
then, again, before the Court of Appeals, never, within the period of six (6) years that had transpired until the Court of
Appeals, rendered its last decision, 17 had he questioned the judicial authority of any of these three (3) courts over his
person. He is deemed, therefore, to have waived whatever objection he might have had to the jurisdiction over his
person, and, hence, to have submitted himself to the Court's jurisdiction. What is more, his behaviour and every
single one of the steps taken by him before said courts particularly the motions therein filed by him implied, not
merely a submission to the jurisdiction thereof, but, also, that he urged the courts to exercise the authority thereof
over his person.

Republic vs. Sunga

WON the courta a quo may dismiss a criminal case on the basis of an affidavit of
desistance executed by the offended party, but without a motion to dismiss filed
by the prosecuting fiscal.
The filing of a complaint or information in Court initiates a criminal action. The Court thereby acquires jurisdiction over
the case, which is the authority to hear and determine the case. When after the filing of the complaint or information a
warrant for the arrest of the accused is issued by the trial court and the accused either voluntarily submitted himself to
the Court or was duly arrested, the Court thereby acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
The prosecuting fiscal in his motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing the case, obviously believed that
despite such manifestation of the complainant, he (fiscal) could prove the prosecution's case.
To avoid similar situations, the Court takes the view that, while the Crespo doctrine has settled that the trial court is
the sole judge on whether a criminal case should be dismissed (after the complaint or information has been filed in
court), still, any move on the part of the complainant or offended party to dismiss the criminal case, even if without
objection of the accused, should first be referred to the prosecuting fiscal for his own view on the matter. He is, after
all, in control of the prosecution of the case and he may have his own reasons why the case should not be dismissed.
It is only after hearing the prosecuting fiscal's view that the Court should exercise its exclusive authority to continue or
dismiss the case.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

Arula vs. Maj. Gen. Espino

Facts:
Arula was recruited by Cpt. Facero of AFP in order to undergo training. On the
following day together with her other recruits, they went to Corrigedor island and
after they went to corrigedor island, a shooting incedent happened, imputing
serious physical injury to the petitioner. Despite the wounds he succeeded in
fleeing Corrigedor Island.

On March 23 the petitioner filed a criminal complaint with the city fiscal of Cavite
City for frustrated homicide against those accused before the general court-martial.
On March 29, the city fiscal of Cavite City sent subpoenas to the aforesaid accused,
advising them that the preliminary investigation would be conducted on April 3 at
9:00 a.m.
On April 2 the petitioner wrote to the Commanding Officer, Philippine Army, Fort
Bonifacio, Rizal, informing the latter that he was not filing charges with the military
authorities against those responsible for his injuries, because he had already filed the
corresponding criminal complaint with the city fiscal of Cavite City.
On April 3 Army lawyers appeared before the city fiscal of Cavite City on behalf of
those army personnel involved in the shooting and wounding of the petitioner and
requested for transfer of the preliminary investigation which was, accordingly, reset
for April 16.
On April 19 the same Army lawyers moved to dismiss Arula's complaint upon the
ground that the civil courts had lost jurisdiction because a court-martial had already
been convened. This motion was rejected by the city fiscal.
This was the status of the criminal complaint filed by the petitioner with the city
fiscal of Cavite City when the present petition was instituted by him. This status has
remained static and at present obtains.
On the other hand, the pertinent proceedings had by and before the military
authorities may be summarized as follows:
On March 21 the President of the Philippines (as Commander-in-Chief) ordered a full
investigation of the Corregidor incident, and, on the following day, March 22, directed
the creation of a court-martial to try all officers and enlisted men responsible for any
crime or crimes committed in connection with the said incident.
On March 27 Major Eduardo Martelino, et al., were placed under technical arrest and
restricted to camp limits.
On April 6 Capt. Alfredo O. Pontejos, pre-trial investigator, submitted his pre-trial
report recommending trial by general court-martial of Major Eduardo Martelino, et al.
Acting on this recommendation, General Espino, by Special Order 208, appointed a
general court-martial to try the case against the said Major Eduardo Martelino, et al.,

for violation of the 94th and 97th articles of war, and forthwith the corresponding
charges and specifications were filed.
On April 14 the pre-trial investigator, Capt. Pontejos, submitted a supplemental report
recommending trial by general court-martial of Capt. Solferino Titong alias Capt.
Mike, trainee Reynaldo Munar alias Lt. Rey, and trainee Eugenie Alcantara alias Lt.
Alcantara.
On April 16, the general court-martial "reconvened." 11 The first prosecution witness to
testify on this day was the petitioner himself. The court-martial then adjourned to
meet again on April 19, 1968.
This was the status of the case before the general court-martial when the present
action was commenced.
ISSUE: In the affirmative, does the general court-martial have jurisdiction over the
case? This in turn depends on the resolution of the sub-issues of (a) whether the
petitioner is a person subject to military law; (b) if he is not, whether Corregidor is a
military reservation; and (c) whether the filing by the petitioner of a criminal
complaint (involving the same offense) with the city fiscal of Cavite City forthwith
invested the Court of First Instance of Cavite jurisdiction to try the case to the
exclusion of the general court-martial.
Ruling: Crisologo vs. People of the Philippines 12 accords to the court first acquiring
jurisdiction over the person of the accused by the filing of charges and having him in
custody the preferential right to proceed with the trial.
Evidently, the general court-martial has acquired jurisdiction, which it acquired
exclusively as against the CFI of Cavite, not only as to the element of precedence in
the filing of the charges, but also because it first acquired custody or jurisdiction of
the persons of the accused. Court-martial jurisdiction over the accused having
properly attached, such military jurisdiction continues throughout all phases of the
proceedings, including appellate review and execution of the sentence
To paraphrase: beyond the pale of disagreement is the legal tenet that a court
acquires jurisdiction to try a criminal case only when the following requisites concur:
(1) the offense is one which the court is by law authorized to take cognizance of, (2)
the offense must have been committed within its territorial jurisdiction, and (3) the
person charged with the offense must have been brought into its forum for trial,
forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon his voluntary submission to the court. In the case
at bar, while the first two requisites are indispensably present with respect to the
Court of First Instance of Cavite, the third requisite has not even become viable,
because no information has been filed with the court, nor have the accused persons

been brought under its jurisdiction. Upon the other hand, all these three requisites
obtained, by the latest, as of April 16 in respect to the general court-martial. The
charges and specifications were before that day forwarded to the court-martial for
trial; all the accused as of that day were already under technical arrest and restricted
to camp limits; the offense is one that is cognizable by the court-martial under the
authority of article of war 94; the offense was committed within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court-martial.
ACCORDINGLY, the present petition is denied, and the restraining order issued by this
Court on April 26, 1968 is hereby lifted. No costs.
BELTRAN VS. RAMOS.
ISSUE:
RULING:
in the present case for the reason that the Rules of Court expressly provide that a
criminal case should be instituted and tried in the municipality or province where the
offense was committed or any of its essential ingredients took place. This is
fundamental principle, the purpose being not to compel the defendant 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. Although the judge of a district may hold the trial in
any particular case subject to the specific provisions, or section 14 (a), Rule 106, in
order not to violate the Rules of Court and disregard the fundamental rights of the
accused. Sometimes a judicial district includes provinces far distant from each other.
Under the theory of the respondent, the accused may be subjected to the great
inconvenience of going to a far distant province with all his witnesses to attend the
trial there. This is prohibited by the Rules of Court as being unfair to the defendant
In view of the foregoing, the respondent judge is enjoined from continuing the trial of
the above-mentioned case in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, without pronouncement to
costs. So ordered.
FUKUZUME VS. PEOPLE
ISSUE: WON RTC of Iloilo city, branch 23, has jurisdiction over the offense of libel?
RULING: ). Although the false representation and verbal contract of sale of the

aluminum scrap wires took place at appellants residence in Paraaque,

appellant and private complainant nevertheless admitted that the initial

payment of P50,000.00 for said transaction was made at the Hotel
Intercontinental in Makati City (Record, pp. 15, 68). Hence, an element of the
crime that the offended party was induced to part with his money because of
the false pretense occurred within the jurisdiction of the lower court giving it
jurisdiction over the instant case.
The CA ruled on the basis of the sworn statement of Yu filed with the NBI on April 19,
1994[32] and the affidavit of Fukuzume which was subscribed on July 20, 1994.[33]
With respect to the sworn statement of Yu, which was presented in evidence by the
prosecution, it is clear that he alleged therein that on July 12, 1991, he gave
Fukuzume the amount of P50,000.00 at the Intercontinental Hotel in Makati. However,
we agree with Fukuzumes contention that Yu testified during his direct examination
that on July 12, 1991 he gave the amount of P50,000.00 to Fukuzume in the latters
house. It is not disputed that Fukuzumes house is located in Paraaque. Yu testified
thus:
Settled is the rule that whenever there is inconsistency between the affidavit and the
testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commands greater weight considering
that affidavits taken ex parte are inferior to testimony given in court, the former
being almost invariably incomplete and oftentimes inaccurate
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 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

Thus, having found that the RTC of Makati did not have jurisdiction to try the case
against Fukuzume, we find it unnecessary to consider the other issues raised in the
present petition.WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision
and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 21888 are SET ASIDE on
ground of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch
146. Criminal Case No. 95-083 is DISMISSED without prejudice.
VICENTE FOZ, JR. and DANNY G. FAJARDO vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
ISSUE: WON The RTC of Iloilo City , branch 23, had jurisdiction over the offense of
libel as charged in the information

RULING: The allegations in the Information that Panay News, a daily publication with

a considerable circulation in the City of Iloilo and throughout the region only showed
that Iloilo was the place where Panay Newswas in considerable circulation but did not
establish that the said publication was printed and first published in Iloilo City.
In Chavez v. Court of Appeals,[16]
Settled is the rule that jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by
the allegations of the complaint or information, and the offense must have been
committed or any one of its essential ingredients took place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court.[22] Considering that the Information failed to allege the
venue requirements for a libel case under Article 360, the Court finds that the RTC of
Iloilo City had no jurisdiction to hear this case. Thus, its decision convicting
petitioners of the crime of libel should be set aside for want of jurisdiction without
prejudice to its filing with the court of competent jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 24, 2004 and the Resolution dated April 8,
2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 22522 are SET ASIDE on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on the
part of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Iloilo City. Criminal Case No. 44527 is DISMISSED without prejudice

BONIFACIO VS. RTC

ISSUE: (1) Whether or not petitioners, in filing the petition directly to the Supreme
Court, violated the rule on hierarchy of courts to thus render the petition dismissible;
and
(2) whether or not the RTC gravely abuse its discretion when it admitted the Amended
Information.
RULING:
(2)The Amended Information was insufficient to vest jurisdiction in Makati.
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. Venue of libel cases where the complainant is a private
individual is limited to only either of two places, namely: (a) where the complainant
actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense; or (b) where the
alleged defamatory article was printed and first published. The prosecution chose the
second.
If the circumstances as to where the libel was printed and first published are used by
the offended party as basis for the venue in the criminal action, the Information must
allege with particularity where the defamatory article was printed and first

published, as evidenced or supported by, for instance, the address of their editorial or
business offices in the case of newspapers, magazines or serial publications. This precondition becomes necessary in order to forestall any inclination to harass.
The same measure cannot be reasonably expected when it pertains to defamatory
material appearing on a website on the internet as there would be no way of
determining the situs of its printing and first publication. To equate first access to the
defamatory article on petitioners website in Makati with printing and first
publication would spawn the very ills that the amendment to Article 360 of the RPC
sought to discourage and prevent. 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 pep coalition website is likewise accessed
or capable of being accessed.
MAGNO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILS.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals has the appellate jurisdiction over the
RTC decision in not allowing Atty. Sitoy to prosecute the case on behalf of the
Ombudsman
RULING:
The Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals, as well as its Resolution is NULL AND
VOID for having been issued without jurisdiction.
The Ombudsman should have filed the petition for certiorari with the Sandiganbayan,
which has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the RTC since the accused are public
officials charged of committing crimes in their capacity as Investigators of the NBI

The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final

judgments, resolutions or orders of regional trial courts whether in the
exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction
as herein provided.
The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions
for the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas
corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including quo
warranto, arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed
under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986: Provided,
That the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the
Supreme Court.

BUAYA vs. Polo

ISSUE: WON the court has jurisdiction over the case
Ruling: In Villanueva v. Ortiz, et al . (L-15344, May 30, 1960, 108 Phil, 493) this Court ruled that in
order to determine the jurisdiction of the court in criminal cases, the complaint must be examined for
the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the facts set out therein and the punishment provided for
by law fall within the jurisdiction of the court where the complaint is filed. The jurisdiction of courts in
criminal cases is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information, and not by the findings
the court may make after the trial (People v. Mission, 87 Phil. 641).Besides, the crime of estafa is a
continuing or transitory offense which may be prosecuted at the place where any of the essential
elements of the crime took place. One of the essential elements of estafa is damage or prejudice to
the offended party. The private respondent has its principal place of business and office at Manila. The
failure of the petitioner to remit the insurance premiums she collected allegedly caused damage and
prejudice to private respondent in Manila.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit The case is remanded to the Regional Trial
Court of Manila, Branch XIX for further proceedings.