ISIP VS PEOPLE

FACTS
Petitioner Manuel Isip (and his wife Marietta)
was convicted of Estafa before the RTC of
Cavite City. Marites, however, died during the
pendency of the appeal before the CA. The
spouses were engaged in the buying and
selling of pledged and unredeemed jewelry
pawned by gambling habitus. However, in
their dealings with Complainant Atty.
Leonardo Jose, they failed to account for the
jewelries given to them to be sold on
commission. Also, certain checks theyve
issued in favor of Jose bounced. Procedurally,
petitioner contends that the RTC of Cavite
has no jurisdiction over the case since the
elements of the crime did not occur there.
Instead, he argues that the case should have
been filed in Manila where their supposed
transactions took place.
ISSUE:
Whether the RTC of Cavite has jurisdiction
over the case.
RULING:
YES. The concept of venue of actions in
criminal cases, unlike in civil cases, is
jurisdictional. 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. 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 shows that
the offense was committed somewhere else,
the court should dismiss the action for want
of jurisdiction. Complainant had sufficiently
shown that the transaction covered by the
case took place in his ancestral home in
Cavite City when he was on approved leave
of absence from the Bureau of Customs.
Since it has been shown that venue was
properly laid, it is now petitioner's task to
prove otherwise, since he claims that the
transaction was entered into in Manila. He
who alleges must prove his allegations apply.
Here, petitioner failed to prove that the
transaction happened in Manila. He argues
that since he and his late wife actually

resided in Manila, convenience suggests that

the transaction was entered there. The Court
wasnt persuaded. The fact that Cavite is a
bit far from Manila doesnt necessarily mean
that the transaction cannot or did not
happen there. Distance will not prevent any
person from going to a distant place where
he can procure goods that he can sell so that
he can earn a living. It is not improbable or
impossible them to have gone, not once, but
twice in one day, to Cavite if that is the
number of times they received pieces of
jewelry from complainant. Also, the fact that
the checks issued were drawn against
accounts with banks in Manila or Makati
doesnt mean that the transactions were not
entered into in Cavite City. When it comes to
credibility, the trial courts assessment
deserves great weight, and is even
conclusive and binding, if not tainted with
arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or
circumstance of weight and influence.
2. LANDBANK of the PHILIPPINES v BELISTA
FACTS
Belista is the owner of 8 parcels of land
placed by the Dept. of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
under theComprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (PD No. 27 &EO No. 228). He and
DAR/LBP disagreed on the amount of just
compensation he deserved, which caused
him to file a Petition for Valuation and
Payment of Just Compensation before the
DARAB-Regional Adjudicator for Region V
(RARAD-V). The RARAD-V decided in his favor.
Aggrieved, LBP filed an original Petition for
Determination of Just Compensation at the
same sala of the RTC sitting as SAC. It was
dismissed on the ground of failure to exhaust
administrative remedies.
ISSUE
Whether it is necessary that in cases
involving claims for just compensation under
RA No. 6657 that the decision of the
Adjudicator must first be appealed to the
DARAB before a party can resort to the RTC
sitting as SAC.
RULING
Sections 50 and 57 of RA No. 6657 provide:
Section 50. Quasi-judicial Powers of the DAR.
TheDAR is hereby vested with primary
jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate
agrarian reform matters and shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters
involving the implementation of agrarian
reform, except those falling under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of

Agriculture (DA) and the Department of

Environment and Natural Resources(DENR) x
section 57. Special Jurisdiction. The Special
Agrarian Court shall have original and
exclusive jurisdiction overall petitions for the
determination of just compensation to
landowners, and the prosecution of all
criminal offenses under this Act. x clearly,
under Section 50, DAR has primary
jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate
agrarian reform matters and exclusive
original jurisdiction over all matters involving
the implementation of agrarian reform,
except those falling under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the DA and the DENR. Further
exception to the DAR's original and exclusive
jurisdiction are all petitions for the
determination of just compensation to
landowners and the prosecution of all
criminal offenses under RANo. 6657, which
are within the jurisdiction of the RTC sitting
as a SAC. Thus, jurisdiction on just
compensation cases for the taking of lands
under RANo. 6657 is vested in the courts.
Here, the trial court properly acquired
jurisdiction over Wycocos complaint for
determination of just compensation. It must
be stressed that although no summary
administrative proceeding was held before
the DARAB, LBP was able to perform its legal
mandate of initially determining the value of
Wiccas land pursuant to Executive Order No.
405, Series of 1990.In accordance with
settled principles of administrative law,
primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR to
determine in a
Preliminary
Manner the just compensation for the lands
taken under the agrarian reform program,
but such determination is subject to
challenge before the courts. The resolution of
just compensation cases for the taking of
lands under agrarian reform is, after all,
essentially a judicial function.
B. JURISDICTION TO ISSUE HOLDDEPARTURE
ORDERS1. MONDEJAR v BUBAN
FACTS:
Mondejar seeks to hold Judge Buban of the
Tacloban City MTCC administratively liable
for gross ignorance of the law, partiality,
serious irregularity and grave misconduct, in
relation to a BP 22 case against Mondejar.
Judge Buban allegedly issued a hold
departure order against her, in violation of
SC Circular No. 39-97, which says that hold
departure ordersmay only be issued in

criminal
cases
within
theexclusive
jurisdiction of the RTC. She also claims that
said order was issued without giving her an
opportunity to be heard. The judge
responded, stating that he was only made
aware of said order when he instructed his
staff to secure a copy from the Executive
Judge of the RTC of Taliban. After which, he
immediately issued an order setting aside
and lifting the hold departure order. As
regards the supposed due process, he sent a
notice of hearing to her and her counsel, but
neither
appeared.
Court
Administrator
recommended a severe reprimand with a
stern warning that should it happen again,
he would be dealt with more severely.
ISSUE:
W/N the judge is administratively liable?
HELD:
YES. The judge is administratively liable.
Circular No. 39-97 limits the authority to
issue hold-departure orders to criminal cases
within the jurisdiction of second level courts.
Paragraph No. 1 of the said circular
specifically provides that hold-departure
orders shall be issued only in criminal cases
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
regional trial courts. Clearly then, criminal
cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of first
level courts do not fall within the ambit of
the circular, and it was an error on the part
of respondent judge to have issued one in
the instant case.
C.
JURISDICTION
DETERMINED
BY
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT1. FOZ v
PEOPLE
Facts:
Vicente Foz (columnist) and Danny Fajardo
(editor-publisher) of Panay News were
charged with libel for writing and publishing
an article against Dr. Edgar Portigo
1
.The RTC found them guilty as charged which
1
That a certain Lita Payunan consulted with
Dr. Portigo\ that she had rectum momma and
had to undergo an operation. Even after
surgery she still experienced difficulty in
urinating and defecating. On her 2
Nd
operation, she woke to find that her anus and
vagina were closed and hole with a catheter
punched on her right side.\ she found out she
had cancer.\ they spent P150,000 for wrong
diagnosis ate agrarian reform matters and

was affirmed by the CA hence this petition

for review. Foz and Fajardo raised for the first
time that the information charging them with
libel did not contain allegations sufficient to
vest jurisdiction in the RTC of Iloilo City.
Issue:
W/N the RTC of Iloilo had jurisdiction over the
offense
Held:
NO Venue in criminal cases is an essential
element of jurisdiction. The offense should
have been committed or any one of its
essential elements took place within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court. The
jurisdiction of the court is determined by the
allegations in the complaint or information.
The rules on venue for written defamation
are as follows:
1.
When offended party is a public official or
private person = filed in RTC of province or
city where the libelous article is printed and
first published
2.
When offended party is a private individual
=filed in RTC of province where he actually
resided at the time of commission of offense
3.
When offended party is a public officer
whose office is in Manila = filed in RTC of
Manila4.When offended party is a public
officer holding office outside Manila = filed in
RTC of province or city where he held office
at the time of commission of the offense Dr.
Portigo is a private individual at the time of
thepublication of the libelous article, the
venue may bethe RTC of the province/city
where the libelous articlewas printed and
first published OR where he actuallyresided
at the time of the commission of the offense.
The Information [relevant to REM] states only
that x xx both the accused as columnists
and editor-publisher, respectively of Panay
News, a daily publication with considerable
circulation in the City of Iloilo and throughout
the region x. Such did not establish that the
said publication was printed and published in
Iloilo City. As cited in 2 other cases, the SC
held that if it would be held that the
information sufficiently vests jurisdiction on
the allegation that the publication was in
general circulation in [place where case is
filed], there would be no impediment to the
filing of the libel action in other location
where the publication is in general
circulation. Such was not the intent of RA

4363.On residence the information failed to

allege the residence of Dr. Portigo. While the
information alleges that Dr. Portigo is a
physician and medical practitioner in Iloilo
City, it did not clearly and positively indicate
that he was actually residing in Iloilo City at
the time of the commission of the offense. It
was possible that he was actually residing in
another place. Residence of a person is his
personal, actual or physical habitation or his
actual residence or place of abode provided
he resides therein with continuity and
consistency; no particular length of time is
required. Residence must be more than
temporary.
D. JURISDICTION OF SANDIGANBAYAN1.
PEOPLE v SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS:
Victoria Amante was a member of the
Sangguniang Panlungsod
Of Toledo City, Province of Cebu at the time
pertinent to this case. On January 14, 1994,
she was able to get hold of a cash advance
in the amount of P71,095.00 under a
disbursement voucher in order to defray
seminar expenses of the Committee on
Health and Environmental Protection, which
she headed. As of December 19, 1995, or
after almost two years since she obtained
the said cash advance, no liquidation was
made. Commission on Audit sent a report to
Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, which
then issued a resolution recommending the
filing of Information for violating the Auditing
Code of the Philippines against respondent
Amante. The Office of the Special Prosecutor
(OSP), upon review of the OMB-Visayas'
Resolution, on April 6, 2001, prepared a
memorandum finding probable cause to
indict respondent Amante. The OSP filed
Information
with
the
Sandiganbayan
accusing Victoria Amante of violating Section
89 of P.D.No. 1445 alleging that with
deliberate intent and intent to gain, did then
and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally
fail to liquidate said cash advances of
P71,095.00. The OSP filed an Information
with the Sandiganbayan accusing Victoria
Amante of violating Section 89 of P.D. No.
1445,Amante countered by saying amongst
others
that
Sandiganbayan
had
no
jurisdiction over the said criminal case
because respondent Amante was then local
official who was occupying a position of
salary grade 26, whereas Section 4 of

Republic Act (R.A.) No.8249 provides that the

Sandiganbayan
shall
have
original
jurisdiction only in cases where the accused
holds a position otherwise classified as Grade
27 and higher, of the Compensation and
Position Classification Act of 1989, R.A. No.
6758.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a member of the
Sangguniang Panlungsod
Under Salary Grade 26 who was charged
with violation of The Auditing Code of the
Philippines falls within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
RULING:
The applicable law in this case is Section 4
of P.D. No.1606, as amended by Section 2 of
R.A. No. 7975 which took effect on May 16,
1995, which was again amended on February
5, 1997 by R.A. No. 8249. The alleged
commission of the offense, as shown in the
Information was on or about December 19,
1995 and the filing of the Information was on
May 21, 2004. The jurisdiction of a court to
try a criminal case is to be determined at the
time of the institution of the action, not at
the time of the commission of the offense.
The exception contained in R.A. 7975, as well
as R.A. 8249,where it expressly provides that
to determine the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan in cases involving violations
of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, R.A. No.
1379,and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the
Revised Penal Code is not applicable in the
present case as the offense involved herein
is a violation of The Auditing Code of the
Philippines. The last clause of the opening
sentence of paragraph (a) of the said two
provisions states:Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. -- The
Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction in all cases involving: A.
Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as
amended, other known as the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379,
and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of
the Revised Penal Code, where one or more
of the accused are officials occupying the
following positions in the government,
whether in a permanent, acting or interim
capacity,
At the time of the commission of the offense
The present case falls under Section 4(b)
where other offenses and felonies
Committed by public officials or employees
in relation to their office are involved.

Under the said provision, no exception is

contained. Thus, the general rule that
jurisdiction of court to try a criminal case is
to be determined at the time of the
institution of the action, not at the time of
the commission of the offense applies in this
present case. Since the present case was
instituted on May 21,2004, the provisions of
R.A. No. 8249 shall govern.
This Court had ruled that as long as the
offense charged in the information is
intimately connected with the office and is
alleged to have been perpetrated while the
accused was in the performance, though
improper or irregular, of his official functions,
there being no personal motive to commit
the crime and had the accused not have
committed it had he not held the aforesaid
office, the accused is held to have been
indicted for "an offense committed in
relation" to his office
.
Note also that: Those that are classified as
Grade 26 and below may still fall within the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan provided
that they hold the positions thus enumerated
by R.A. No. 3019. Particularly and exclusively
enumerated are provincial governors, vicegovernors, members of the sangguniang
panlalawigan, and
provincial treasurers,
assessors, engineers, and other provincial
department heads; city mayors, vice-mayors,
members of the sangguniang panlungsod,
city treasurers, assessors, engineers , and
other city department heads; officials of the
diplomatic service occupying the position as
consul and higher; Philippine army and air
force colonels, naval captains, and all officers
of higher rank; PNP chief superintendent and
PNP officers of higher rank; City and
provincial prosecutors and their assistants,
and officials and prosecutors in the Office of
the Ombudsman and special prosecutor; and
presidents,
directors
or
trustees,
or
managers
of
government-owned
or
controlled corporations, state universities or
educational institutions or foundations. In
connection therewith, Section 4(b) of the
same law provides that other offenses or
felonies committed by public officials and
employees mentioned in subsection (a) in
relation to their office also fall under the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
2. SERRANA v SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts:

Serana was a senior student and a

government scholar of UP-Cebu. She was
appointed by then President Estrada as a
student regent of UP, to serve a one-year
term. She discussed with President Estrada
the renovation of Vinsons Hall Annex in UP
Diliman. With her siblings and relatives,
Serana registered with the SEC the Office of
the Student Regent Foundation, Inc. (OSRFI).
One of the projects of the OSRFI was the
renovation of the Vinsons Hall Annex.
President Estrada gave P15M to the OSRFI as
financial assistance for the proposed
renovation. The source of the funds,
according to the information, was the Office
of the President .However, the renovation of
Vinzons Hall Annex failed to materialize.
Hence, the succeeding student regent, filed a
complaint for Malversation of Public Funds
and Property with the Office of the
Ombudsman. And the Ombudsman, after due
investigation, found probable cause to indict
Serana and her brother for estafa. Serana
moved to quash the information. She
claimed that the Sandiganbayan does not
have any jurisdiction over the offense
charged or over her person, in her capacity
as UP student regent.
Issue:
Whether Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction to
try government scholar and a student
regent, along wither brother (a private
individual), of swindling government funds?
YES
Ratio:1.
The
jurisdiction
of
the
Sandiganbayan is set by P.D. No. 1606, as
amended, not by R.A. No.3019, as amended.
Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. - The Sandiganbayan
shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in
all cases involving: A. xxx (1) Officials of the
executive branch occupying the positions of
regional director and higher, otherwise
classified as Grade "27" and higher, of the
Compensation and Position Classification Act
of 989(Republic Act No. 6758), specifically
including: xxx " (g) Presidents, directors or
trustees, or managers of government-owned
or controlled corporations, state universities
or educational institutions or foundations.
2. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the
offense of estafa.
Section 4(B) of P.D. No. 1606 reads. Other
offenses or felonies whether simple or
complexed with other crimes committed by
the public officials and employees mentioned

in subsection a of this section in relation to

their office.
The jurisdiction is simply subject to the twin
requirements that (a) the offense is
committed by public officials and employees
and that (b) the offense is committed in
relation to their office. Plainly, estafa is one
of those other felonies.
3. Petitioner UP student regent is a public
officer.
Petitioner claims that she is not a public
officer with Salary Grade 27; she is, in fact, a
regular tuition fee-paying student. This is
likewise bereft of merit. It is not only the
salary grade that determines the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan
also has jurisdiction over other officers
enumerated in P.D. No.1606.While the first
part of Section 4(A) covers only officials with
Salary Grade 27 and higher, its second part
specifically includes other executive officials
whose positions may not be of Salary Grade
27 and higher but who are by express
provision of law placed under the jurisdiction
of the said court. Petitioner falls under the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as she is
placed there by express provision of law. As
the Sandiganbayan pointed out, the BOR
performs functions similar to those of a
board of trustees of anon-stock Corporation.
Moreover, it is well established that
compensation is not an essential element of
public office. At most, it is merely incidental
to the public office.
4. The offense charged was committed in
relation to public office, according to the
Information.
It is axiomatic that jurisdiction is determined
by the averments in the information. In the
case at bench, the information alleged, in no
uncertain terms that petitioner, being then a
student regent of U.P., "while in the
performance of her official functions,
committing the offense in relation to her
office and taking advantage of her position,
with intent to gain
3. ESQUIVEL vSANDIGANBAYAN(borrowed
from C)
FACTS:
PO2 Eduardo and SPO1 Catacutan are
assigned to the Regional Intelligence and
Investigation Division of San Fernando
Pampanga. They filed their complaintaffidavits with the CIDG against petitioners
AntonioEsquivel (the municipal mayor Jaen,

Nueva Ecija) and his brother Eboy Esquivel.

They crimes complained of were illegal
arrest, arbitrary detention, maltreatment,
attempted murder and grave threats. Several
other police officers were accused with the
Esquivels. The initial investigation showed
that on March1998, Eduardo was in his
parents house, about to eat lunch when
Equivels arrived with other police officers.
They disarmed Eduardo and forced him to
board their vehicle and brought him to the
municipal hall. On the way, Mayor Esquivel
mauled him and threatened to kill him while
pointing a gun at Eduardo. Upon arrival at
the town hall, Mayor Esquivel ordered a
certain SPO1 Espiritu to kill Eduardo butSPO1
Catacutan arrived to verify what happened to
Eduardo. The mayor threatened him as well.
The mayor continued to harass, threaten and
inflict physical injuries upon Eduardo until he
lost consciousness. When he woke up, he
was released button before he signed a
statement in a police blotter that he was in
good physical condition. The alleged motive
for this was because the mayor believed
Eduardo and Catacutan were among the law
enforcers who raided a jueteng den
connected to the mayor. After investigation,
the CIDG forwarded the findings to the Office
of the Deputy Ombudsman, which conducted
a preliminary investigation and required the
submission of counter-affidavits.
In their
counter-affidavits, the Esquivels allege that
Eduardo was actually a fugitive with a
warrant of arrest for malversation and they
just
confiscated
his
gun
for
illegal
possession.
In June 1998, the Deputy Ombudsman issued
a resolution recommending that both
Esquivels be indicted for less serious physical
injuries and grave threats. As to the charges
against
other
petitioners,
they
were
dismissed. Then
Ombudsman
Desierto
approved this. So, the separate informations
were filed against the Esquivels in the
Sandiganbayan. Accused filed an MR but this
was denied. Esquivels were arraigned,
pleaded not guilty. With the denial of their
MR, they elevate the matter to the SC
alleging GADLEJ in the issuance of the
resolution of the deputy ombudsman.
Petitioners theorize that the Sandiganbayan
has no jurisdiction over their persons as they

hold positions excluded in Republic Act No.

7975. As the positions of municipal mayors
and
Barangay
Captains are not mentioned therein, they
claim they are not covered by said law under
the principle of
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
.
ISSUE:
W/N the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over
the cases against both Mayor Esquivel and
Eboy Esquivel.
HELD/RATIO:
Yes,
Sandiganbayan
has
jurisdiction. Esquivels are wrong!
Petitioners claim lacks merit. In
Rodrigo, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan
,
Binary vs. Sandiganbayan
, and
Layus vs. Sandiganbayan
, we already held that municipal mayors fall
under the original and exclusive jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan. Nor can
Barangay
Captain Mark Anthony Esquivel claim that
since he is not a municipal mayor, he is
outside the Sandiganbayans jurisdiction.
R.A. 7975, as amended by R.A. No. 8249,
provides that it is only in cases where "none
of the accused(underscoring supplied) are
occupying positions corresponding to salary
grade 27 or higher" that exclusive original
jurisdiction shall be vested in the proper
regional trial court, metropolitan trial court,
municipal trial court, and municipal circuit
court, as the case may be, pursuant to their
respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas
Pampanga Blog. 129, as amended." Note
that under the 1991 Local Government Code,
Mayor Esquivel has a salary grade of 27.
Since
Barangay
Captain Esquivel is the co-accused in
Criminal Case No. 24777 of Mayor
Esquivel,whose position falls under salary
grade 27, theSandiganbayan committed no
grave abuse of discretion in assuming
jurisdiction over said criminalcase, as well as
over Criminal Case No. 24778,involving both
of them. Hence, the writ of certioraricannot
issue in petitioners favor.