Agustin vs. Pamintuan

8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 467
VOL. 467, AUGUST 22, 2005 601

Agustin vs. Pamintuan
*
G.R. No. 164938. August 22, 2005.
VICTOR C. AGUSTIN, petitioner, vs. HON. FERNANDO

VIL PAMINTUAN, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of
the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 3;
ANTHONY DE LEON and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure; Venue; Jurisdictions;

Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction.—
Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction.
The jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by
the allegations in 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.
Same; Same; Same; Rules on Venue.—The rules on venue in
Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code are as follows: 1. Whether
the offended party is a public official or a private person, the
criminal action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of the
province or city where the libelous article is printed and first
published. 2. If the offended party is a private individual, the
criminal action may also be filed in the Court of First Instance of
the province where he actually resided at the time of the
commission of the offense. 3. If the offended party is a public
officer whose office is in Manila at the time of the commission of
the offense, the action may be filed in the Court of First Instance
of Manila. 4. If the offended party is a public officer holding office
outside of Manila, the action may be filed in the Court of First
Instance of the province or city where he held office at the time of
the commission of the offense.
Same; Same; Same; Libel; Experience has shown that under
the old rule, the offended party could harass the accused in a libel
case by laying the venue of the criminal action in a remote or
distant places.—Experience has shown that under the old rule,
the offended party could harass the accused in a libel case by
laying the venue of the criminal action in a remote or distant
places. To obviate controversies as to the venue of the criminal
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017420f6f8126920867b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/13
action from written defamation, the complaint or Information

should contain allegations as to
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
602
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
whether the offended party was a public officer or a private

individual at the time the offense was committed, and where he
was actually residing at that time; whenever possible, the place
where the written defamation was printed and first published
should likewise be alleged. In this case, the Informations did not
allege that the offended party was actually residing in Baguio
City at the time of the commission of the offenses, or that the
alleged libelous articles were printed and first published in
Baguio City. It cannot even be inferred from the allegation “the
offended party was the Acting General Manager of the Baguio
Country Club and of good standing and reputation in the
community” that the private respondent (complainant) was
actually residing in Baguio City.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Residence; Words and Phrases;
The residence of a person is his personal, actual or physical
habitation or actual residence or place of abode or his actual
residence or place of abode provided he resides therein with
continuity and consistency; The term residence involves the idea of
something beyond a transient stay in the place—one who transacts
business in a place and spends considerable time thereat does not
render such a person a resident therein.—The 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 of
residence is required. However, the residence must be more than
temporary. The term residence involves the idea of something
beyond a transient stay in the place; and to be a resident, one
must abide in a place where he had a house therein. To create a
residence in a particular place, two fundamental elements are
essential: The actual bodily presence in the place, combined with
a freely exercised intention of remaining there permanently or for
an indefinite time. While it is possible that as the Acting General
Manager of the Baguio Country Club, the petitioner may have

been actually residing in Baguio City, the Informations did not
state that he was actually residing therein when the alleged
crimes were committed. It is entirely possible that the private
complainant may have been actually residing in another place.
One who transacts business in a place and spends considerable
time thereat does not render such person a resident therein.
Where one may have or own a business does not of itself
constitute residence within the meaning of the statute. Pursuit of
business in a place is not conclusive of residence there for
purposes of venue.
603
VOL. 467, AUGUST 22, 2005 603
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Information; Pleadings and

Practice; The absence of any allegations in the Informations that
the offended party was actually residing where the crimes charged
were allegedly committed is a substantial defect.—We do not agree
with the ruling of the CA that the defects in the Informations are
merely formal. Indeed, the absence of any allegations in the
Informations that the offended party was actually residing in
Baguio City, where the crimes charged were allegedly committed,
is a substantial defect. Indeed, the amendments of the
Informations to vest jurisdiction upon the court cannot be
allowed.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Fortunato C. Pagdanganan, Jr. for petitioner.
Paris G. Real for private respondent Anthony De
Leon.
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
Before the Court is a petition for1 review on certiorari of the

Court of Appeals’ (CA) Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 70629
dismissing the petition for certiorari and prohibition filed
by petitioner Victor C. Agustin which, in turn, assailed the
Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City,
Branch 3, denying the motion to quash the Informations in
Criminal Case Nos. 17892-R to 17895-R, for libel.
On June 13, 2000, the Office of the City 2Prosecutor of
Baguio City, filed four separate Informations charging the
petitioner, a Philippine Daily Inquirer columnist, with

libel. The inculpatory portion of that in Criminal Case No.
17892-R is quoted infra, as follows:
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis, with Associate

Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Hakim S. Abdulwahid, concurring; Rollo,
pp. 39-45.
2 Rollo, pp. 52- 59.
604

“That on or about the 17th day of March 2000, in the City of

Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent and malicious
intent and evil motive of attacking, injuring and impeaching the
character, honesty, integrity, virtue and reputation of one
Anthony De Leon the acting general manager of the Baguio
Country Club, and as a private citizen of good standing and
reputation in the community and with malicious intent of
exposing the (sic) Anthony De Leon to public hatred, contempt,
ridicule, discredit and dishonor, without any justifiable motive,
did then and there willfully, maliciously and criminally prepare or
cause to prepare, write in his column “Cocktails” and publish in
the Philippine Daily Inquirer, a newspaper of general circulation
in the City of Baguio and in the entire Philippines, wherein in
said column the said accused did then and there defame the
complainant Anthony De Leon by branding and imputing upon
him the following defamatory and libelous statements, to wit:
“The trysting place between the President Marcos and Hollywood actress
Dovie Beams is not the subject of a high level tax evasion investigation
ordered by no less than the new BIR Commissioner, Dakila Fonacier.
That bungalow on Northwestern Street had hastily changed hands in
the last two years, and had supposedly been sold to, first Anthony De
Leon, the acting general manager of the exclusive Baguio Country Club,
who in turn disposed of it to an unwitting Chinoy couple.
According to preliminary BIR findings, the transfer to Mr. De Leon is
already spurious since the cook De Leon had been missing and had gone
‘TNT’ in New York more than eight years ago. The spurious sale to the
male De Leon who is not related to the cook, was necessary to make it
appear that it had been an intra-family transfer.
Second, the Baguio Country Club manager made it appear that he and
his family had been using the house himself, but the BIR had now gotten
a certification from the Greenhills homeowners’ association that the said

bungalow has all these years been rented to third parties, the last of which
was an ADB executive.
The most damaging of the findings was the supposed transfer price of
the bungalow between the De Leons and how
605
VOL. 467, AUGUST 22, 2005 605

much the bungalow was later palmed off to the Chinese-Filipino couple.
We will leave those details for the BIR Commissioner to announce
himself, that, if he could overcome the tremendous and well-oiled lobbying
efforts by De Leon’s principals.
Tip: One of the principals is a lawyer and self-proclaimed best friend of
Lenny ‘Dragon Lady’ de Jesus.”
which aforesaid defamatory, malicious and libelous words and

statements have been read by the personnel of the Baguio
Country Club, by the residents of the City of Baguio, and by the
public in the other parts of the country, and that those libelous
and defamatory words and statements aforementioned are
untrue, false and malicious tending to impeach the character,
integrity, virtue and reputation of the said Anthony De Leon as
Acting General Manager of the Baguio Country Club, thus,
placing and causing said Anthony De Leon to public hatred,
contempt, dishonor, discredit and ridicule which acts are serious
and insulting in nature,
3
to the damage and prejudice of the said
Anthony De Leon.”
Except for the alleged libelous articles, as well as the dates

of the commission of the crimes charged therein, the three
other Informations are similarly worded.
Agustin was arraigned on September 4
10, 2001, and
pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
Agustin then filed a Motion to Quash the Informations,
on the sole ground that the court had no jurisdiction over
the offenses charged. He pointed out that the said
Informations did not contain any allegation that the
offended party, Anthony De Leon, was actually residing in
Baguio City, or that the alleged libelous articles were
printed and first published in a newspaper of general
circulation in Baguio City.
Private complainant De Leon, through counsel, opposed
the motion, alleging that he was a bona fide resident of the
Baguio Country Club located at the Country Club Road,
Baguio
_______________
3 Rollo, pp. 52-53.

4 Id., at pp. 197-198.
606

City; he was also the acting general manager of the club at

the time the alleged libelous article was published. He
emphasized that the Informations alleged that he was of
good standing and reputation in the community, and that
the word “community” meant Baguio City, where he was
residing. Moreover, Agustin was estopped from assailing
the court’s lack of jurisdiction since he was arraigned
before he filed his motion to quash the Information. Even if
it may be assumed that there was some ambiguity in the
Informations as to whether he was an actual resident of
Baguio City, amending them would suffice; based on the
entirety of the context and applying the doctrine of
necessary implication, there can be no other conclusion
than that he was a resident of Baguio City.
By way of Reply, Agustin averred that the allegations in
the Informations (that the private complainant was the
acting general manager of the Baguio Country Club and
was a private citizen of good standing and reputation in the
community) do not constitute an allegation that the private
complainant was an actual resident of Baguio City. He
insisted that to construe the word “community” in the
Informations to mean the community in Baguio City would
be to unduly strain the limits of a fair interpretation; there
must be clear and positive allegations in the Informations
that the private complainant actually resided in Baguio
City. He argued that he was not estopped from assailing
the court’s jurisdiction over the crimes charged even after
his arraignment because lack of jurisdiction is a matter
which can be dealt with at any time. 5
On January 16, 2002, the trial court issued an Order
denying the motion to quash, holding that in the light of
the petitioner’s admission that the private complainant
was the General Manager of the Baguio Country Club, “it
was reasonable to infer therefrom that the private
complainant was actually a
_______________
5 Rollo, p. 50.
607
VOL. 467, AUGUST 22, 2005 607

resident of Baguio City at the time the alleged libelous

articles were published.”
Agustin filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order,
insisting that the mere fact that the private complainant
was the General Manager of the Baguio Country Club did
not necessarily mean that the latter was actually residing
in Baguio City, as it was also possible that he was actually
residing in a place nearby. The trial court, however, denied
the motion on April 1, 2002.
Agustin forthwith filed a Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition with a plea for an injunctive relief before the
Court of Appeals (CA), claiming that the trial court
committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in denying his Motion to Quash.
On February 24, 2004, the CA rendered a decision
dismissing the petition. It disagreed with Agustin, and held
that the trial court did not commit a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in so
ruling. According to the CA, while the Informations filed by
the prosecution did not contain allegations that the
complainant was actually a resident of Baguio City at the
time the alleged libelous articles were printed and first
published, and that the alleged libelous articles were
printed and first published in Baguio City, such defects
were merely of form and not of substance. Thus, there is no
need to quash the Informations, as they may merely be
amended pursuant to Section 14, Rule 110 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides that “an
amendment, either of form or substance, may be made at
any time before the accused enters a plea to the charge,
and thereafter,
6
as to all matters of form with leave of
court.” The CA further ruled that any amendment that
would be made to conform to the private complainant’s
residency requirements would not place the accused at a
disadvantage.
_______________
6 Rollo, p. 44.
608

Agustin filed a motion for reconsideration of the7 decision,

which the appellate court denied for lack of merit.
Agustin, now the petitioner, insists that the CA erred in
dismissing his petition for certiorari and prohibition, it
appearing that the trial court committed a grave abuse of
its discretion in denying his Motion to Quash the
Informations, as well as his motion for reconsideration of
the trial court’s order denying the same.
The petitioner maintains that in the absence of any
allegations in the Informations that the private respondent
was actually residing in Baguio City, or that the alleged
libelous articles were printed and first published in Baguio
City as mandated by Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code,
the trial court had no jurisdiction over the offenses
charged. He asserts that the amendments of the
Informations would likewise be improper, considering that
the defects of the Informations were not merely of form but
of substance. The petitioner posits that venue in criminal
cases is jurisdictional and mandatory; hence, conformably
8
with the decisions9 of the Court in Lopez v. City Judge, and
Agbayani v. Sayo, the Informations must be quashed.
In its Comment on the petition, the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG) maintains that the failure of the
Informations to allege that the private respondent is a
resident of Baguio City (where the Informations were filed)
is not a jurisdictional defect. It asserts that the averment
in the Informations that the crimes charged were
committed within the jurisdiction of the trial court in
Baguio City, taken in conjunction with the other
allegations therein, are sufficient to vest jurisdiction over
the subject cases in the RTC of Baguio City.
_______________
7 Id., at p. 47.
8 G.R. No. L-25795, 29 October 1966, 18 SCRA 616.
9 G.R. No. L-47880, 30 April 1979, 89 SCRA 699.
609
VOL. 467, AUGUST 22, 2005 609

For his part, the private complainant reiterated his

arguments in the RTC and in the CA in his Comment on
the Petition.
The threshold issues in the present petition are: (1)
whether or not the RTC of Baguio City has jurisdiction over
the offenses charged in the four Informations on the
premise that the Informations are defective; and (2)
whether the Informations may be amended to cure the said
defects.
The petition is meritorious.
Venue in10 criminal cases is an essential element of
jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a court over the criminal
case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or
Information, and the offense must have been committed or
any one of its essential ingredients 11
took place within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court.
Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code provides—
ART. 360. Persons responsible.—Any person who shall publish,

exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation
in writing or by similar means, shall be responsible for the same.
The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or
business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial
publication, shall be responsible for the defamations contained
therein to the same extent as if he were the author thereof.
The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written
defamations as provided for in this chapter, shall be filed
simultaneously or separately with the Court of First Instance of
the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first
published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at
the time of the commission of the offense; Provided, however, That
where one of the offended parties is a public officer whose office is
in the City of Manila at the time of the commission of the offense,
the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the City
of Manila or of the city
_______________
10 Agbayani v. Sayo, supra; Lopez v. City Judge, supra.

11 Uy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119000, 28 July 1997, 276 SCRA 367.
610

or province where the libelous article is printed and first

published, and in case such public officer does not hold office in
the City of Manila, the action shall be filed in the Court of First
Instance or the province or city where he held office at the time of

the commission of the offense or where the libelous article is
printed and first published and in case one of the offended parties
is a private individual, the action shall be filed in the Court of
First Instance of the province or city where he actually resides at
the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous
matter is printed and first published: Provided, further, That the
civil action shall be filed in the same court where the criminal
action is filed and vice versa: Provided, furthermore, That the
court where the criminal action or civil action for damages is first
filed, shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts:
And provided, finally, That this amendment shall not apply to
cases of written defamations, the civil and/or criminal actions to
which have been filed in court at the time of the effectivity of this
law.
Preliminary investigation of criminal actions for written
defamations as provided for in the chapter shall be conducted by
the provincial or city fiscal of the province or city, or by the
municipal court of the city or capital of the province where such
actions may be instituted in accordance with the provisions of this
article.
No criminal action for defamation which consists in the
imputation of a crime which cannot be prosecuted de oficio shall
be brought except at the instance of and upon complaint expressly
filed by the offended party.
Thus, the rules on venue in Article 360 of the Revised

Penal Code are as follows:
1. Whether the offended party is a public official or a

private person, the criminal action may be filed in
the Court of First Instance of the province or city
where the libelous article is printed and first
published.
2. If the offended party is a private individual, the
criminal action may also be filed in the Court of
First Instance of the province where he actually
resided at the time of the commission of the offense.
611
VOL. 467, AUGUST 22, 2005 611

3. If the offended party is a public officer whose office

is in Manila at the time of the commission of the
offense, the action may be filed in the Court of First
Instance of Manila.
4. If the offended party is a public officer holding office

outside of Manila, the action may be filed in the
Court of First Instance of the province or city where
he held12office at the time of the commission of the
offense.
Experience has shown that under the old rule, the offended
party could harass the accused in a libel case by laying the13
venue of the criminal action in a remote or distant places.
To obviate controversies as to the venue of the criminal
action from written defamation, the complaint or
Information should contain allegations as to whether the
offended party was a public officer or a private individual
at the time the offense was committed, and where he was
actually residing at that time; whenever possible, the place
where the written defamation was 14
printed and first
published should likewise be alleged.
In this case, the Informations did not allege that the
offended party was actually residing in Baguio City at the
time of the commission of the offenses, or that the alleged
libelous articles were printed and first published in Baguio
City. It cannot even be inferred from the allegation “the
offended party was the Acting General Manager of the
Baguio Country Club and of good standing and reputation
in the community” that the private respondent
(complainant) was actually residing in Baguio City.
The 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 of residence is
required. However, the
_______________
12 Agbayani v. Sayo, supra, p. 705.

13 Id., at p. 704.
14 Id., at p. 706.
612

15
residence must be more than temporary. The term
residence involves the idea of something beyond a transient
stay in the place; and to be a resident,
16
one must abide in a
place where he had a house therein. To create a residence
in a particular place, two fundamental elements are
essential: The actual bodily presence in the place, combined

with a freely exercised intention 17of remaining there
permanently or for an indefinite time. While it is possible
that as the Acting General Manager of the Baguio Country
Club, the petitioner may have been actually residing in
Baguio City, the Informations did not state that he was
actually residing therein when the alleged crimes were
committed. It is entirely possible that the private
complainant may have been actually residing in another
place. One who transacts business in a place and spends
considerable time 18
thereat does not render such person a
resident therein. Where one may have or own a business
does not of itself constitute residence within the meaning of
the statute. Pursuit of business in a place
19
is not conclusive
of residence there for purposes of venue.
We do not agree with the ruling of the CA that the
defects in the Informations are merely formal. Indeed, the
absence of any allegations in the Informations that the
offended party was actually residing in Baguio City, where
the crimes charged were allegedly committed, is a
substantial defect. Indeed, the amendments of the
Informations
20
to vest jurisdiction upon the court cannot be
allowed.
IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is
GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals
in
_______________
15 Boleyley v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 128734, 14 September 1999, 314

SCRA 364.
16 In Re: Zurick, 33 F.2d. 364 (1929).
17 Barth v. Barth, 189 S.W.2d 451 (1945).
18 Agey v. Red Star Supply Co., 113 S.W.2d 212 (1938).
19 Green v. Newton, 245 S.W.2d 299 (1951).
20 Agbayani v. Sayo, supra; Almeda v. Villaluz, G.R. No. L-31665, 6
August 1975, 66 SCRA 38.
613
VOL. 467, AUGUST 22, 2005 613

CA-G.R. SP No. 70629 are SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial

Court of Baguio City, Branch 3, is hereby DIRECTED TO
QUASH the Informations and DISMISS the cases against
petitioner Victor C. Agustin in Criminal Case Nos. 17892-R
to 17895-R.
SO ORDERED.
Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Tingaand

Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
Petition granted, assailed decision set aside. Regional

Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 3 directed to quash
Informations and dismiss cases against Victor C. Agustin in
Criminal Cases Nos. 17892-R to 17895-R.
Notes.—As a rule, a public official may not recover

damages for charges of falsehood related to his official
conduct unless he proves that the statement was made
with actual malice. (Banas, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, 325
SCRA 259 [2000])
The freedom of speech, protected by the Constitution
carries with it the right to criticize the action and conduct
of a public official. (Jalandoni vs. Drilon, 327 SCRA 107
[2000])
——o0o——
614
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Agustin vs. Pamintuan

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Agustin vs. Pamintuan

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 467

VOL. 467, AUGUST 22, 2005 601

VICTOR C. AGUSTIN, petitioner, vs. HON. FERNANDO

Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure; Venue; Jurisdictions;

action from written defamation, the complaint or Information

602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Agustin vs. Pamintuan

whether the offended party was a public officer or a private

Manager of the Baguio Country Club, the petitioner may have

VOL. 467, AUGUST 22, 2005 603

Agustin vs. Pamintuan

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Information; Pleadings and

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

Before the Court is a petition for1 review on certiorari of the

petitioner, a Philippine Daily Inquirer columnist, with

1 Penned by Associate Justice Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis, with Associate

604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

“That on or about the 17th day of March 2000, in the City of

a certification from the Greenhills homeowners’ association that the said

VOL. 467, AUGUST 22, 2005 605

which aforesaid defamatory, malicious and libelous words and

Except for the alleged libelous articles, as well as the dates

3 Rollo, pp. 52-53.

606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

City; he was also the acting general manager of the club at

VOL. 467, AUGUST 22, 2005 607

resident of Baguio City at the time the alleged libelous

608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Agustin filed a motion for reconsideration of the7 decision,

VOL. 467, AUGUST 22, 2005 609

For his part, the private complainant reiterated his

ART. 360. Persons responsible.—Any person who shall publish,

10 Agbayani v. Sayo, supra; Lopez v. City Judge, supra.

610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

or province where the libelous article is printed and first

Instance or the province or city where he held office at the time of

Thus, the rules on venue in Article 360 of the Revised

1. Whether the offended party is a public official or a

VOL. 467, AUGUST 22, 2005 611

3. If the offended party is a public officer whose office

4. If the offended party is a public officer holding office

12 Agbayani v. Sayo, supra, p. 705.

612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

essential: The actual bodily presence in the place, combined

15 Boleyley v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 128734, 14 September 1999, 314

VOL. 467, AUGUST 22, 2005 613

CA-G.R. SP No. 70629 are SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial

Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Tingaand

Petition granted, assailed decision set aside. Regional

Notes.—As a rule, a public official may not recover

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

S-ar putea să vă placă și