TOPIC Jurisdiction of the Courts – Continuing Crimes

CASE NO. G.R. No. 8267

CASE NAME U.S. v. Cunanan
MEMBER Antonio Alejandro T. Rebosa, Jr.

DOCTRINE
The theory upon which a person accused of a transitory offense may be tried in any jurisdiction within
which he is found is based upon the ground that there is a new commission of the same offense" in the
jurisdiction wherein he is found. In such a case, the complaint should allege that the offense was committed
within the jurisdiction of the court and not at the place where it was originally committed.

The complaint in this case alleges that the offense was committed in the Province of Cebu, but there is no
allegation that it was committed within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Manila. When a
complaint shows that the offense charged was not committed within the jurisdiction of the court, it is
demurrable.

RECIT-READY DIGEST
Cunanan was charged with the crime of desertion. It was alleged in the complaint that on or about the 22nd
day of June, 1912, Cunanan, , before the term of his enlistment had expired, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously absent himself for more than 10 days, without license from his superiors, and
with the intention not to return, by then and there abandoning said steamship Rover in said port of Cebu,
Philippine Islands and deserting from the service, in order not to return, in violation of Sec. 9(c) of Act No.
1980. Cunanan was duly arrested. He demurred to the complaint, claiming that the CFI had no jurisdiction
and that the complaint did not show facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, as well as it being
ambigious, unintelligible and uncertain. The CFI sustained the demurrer. The SC ruled that the CFI of
Manila indeed does not have jurisdiction over the case. There are continuing of transitory offenses which
may be tried by the court of any jurisdiction in which the defendant may be found. In this case, the allegation
is the offense was committed in Cebu and no allegation that it was committed within CFI of Manila’s
jurisdiction. The complaint should show that the offense was committed within the court’s jurisdiction.

FACTS
• Apolinario Cunanan was charged with the crime of desertion. The complaint was presented in the
CFI of Manila and alleged:
o That on or about the 22nd day of June, 1912, the said Apolinario Cunanan was duly enlisted
in the Bureau of Navigation, of the city of Manila, Philippine Islands, as a seaman, and had
been assigned by said Bureau of Navigation to render services on board the steamship
Rover of the Bureau of Navigation
o The steamship Rover was in the navigable jurisdictional waters of the Philippine Islands,
to wit, tied up at the port of Cebu, Province of Cebu, Philippines making trips from Cebu
to Samar and intermediate ports in the PH Islands
o Cunanan, before the term of his enlistment had expired, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously absent himself for more than 10 days, without license from his
superiors, and with the intention not to return, by then and there abandoning said steamship
Rover in said port of Cebu, Philippine Islands and deserting from the service, in order not
to return, in violation of Sec. 9© of Act No. 1980
• Upon this complaint, Cunanan was duly arrested, and brought before the Court.
• Upon arraignment, he demurred to the complaint, upon the following grounds:
(1) That the court had no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant or of the subject of the
action;
(2) That the complaint did not show facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; and

1
 (3) That the complaint was ambiguous, unintelligible, and uncertain.
• The CFI sustained the demurrer, holding that the CFI of Manila did not have jurisdiction to try
Cunanan, and ordered that he be held and delivered to the proper authorities of the Province of
Cebu, where the crime was alleged to have been committed
• The Attorney-General contends in his argument in this court that the offense is a continuing offense,
and that any court, in the jurisdiction of which the defendant is found, may try the defendant.

ISSUE/S and HELD

1. W/N the CFI of Manila has jurisdiction over the case? – NO

RATIO
1. On the issue of jurisdiction,
• The jurisdiction of the CFI of the Philippine islands, in criminal cases, is limited to
well-defined territory. A complaint which shows positively that an offense was not
committed within the jurisdiction of the court is demurrable.
• The Court discussed that there are continuing of transitory offenses which may be tried by
the court of any jurisdiction in which the defendant may be found. They are continuing or
transitory upon the theory that there is a continuance or repetition of the offense wherever
the defendant may be found.
• The Court ruled, however, that the theory that an offense is transitory or continuing is based
on the ground that there is a new commission of the offense in the country of state he is
found.
• In this case, the allegation is the offense was committed in Cebu and no allegation that it
was committed within CFI of Manila’s jurisdiction. The complaint should show that the
offense was committed within the court’s jurisdiction.