People vs MTC QC et al.

G.R. No. 123263 December 16, 1996

FACTS:

On January 30, 1995 an information for libel was filed against Isah V. Red in the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City. The case thereby initiated was docketed as Criminal Case No. 95-60134 and
raffled to Branch 82. Red filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that the RTC had no
jurisdiction of the offense. The Judge found merit in the motion and by an Order dated March 29, 1995,
remanded the case to the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City "for proper action/disposition in the
premises." His Honor declared that "under Section 2 of R.A. No. 7691, which took effect on April 15,
1994, exclusive original jurisdiction over 'all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6)
years, irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable accessory or other
penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of
kind, nature, value or amount thereof is vested in the Municipal Trial Court" The case was accordingly
transferred to the Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Court where it was docketed as Case No. 43-00548
and raffled to Branch 43.

ISSUE:
W/N RTC has jurisdiction over Libel Cases. (YES)

RULING:
The Court ruled that there was no reversible error committed by public respondent Court of
Appeals in denying petitioner's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The contention that R.A. No.
7691 divested the Regional Trial Courts of jurisdiction to try libel cases cannot be sustained. While libel
is punishable by imprisonment of six months and one day to four years and two months (Art. 360,
Revised Penal Code) which imposable penalty is lodged within the Municipal Trial Courts' jurisdiction
under R.A. No. 7691 (Sec. 32 [21]), said law, however, excludes therefrom "cases falling within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts". The Court in Bocobo vs. Estanislao, 72 SCRA
520 and Jalandoni vs. Endaya, 55 SCRA 261, correctly cited by the Court of Appeals, has laid down the
rule that Regional Trial Courts have the exclusive jurisdiction over libel cases, hence, the expanded
jurisdiction conferred by R.A. 7691 to inferior courts cannot be applied to libel cases. Respecting
respondents' claim that venue is merely procedural, suffice it to point out that unlike in civil cases, in
criminal cases venue is jurisdictional.

WHEREFORE, the petition is granted; the respondent Court's Orders dated August 14, 1995,
September 7, 1995, and October 18, 1995 are declared null and void for having been issued without
jurisdiction; and said Court is enjoined from further taking cognizance of and proceeding with Criminal
Case No. 43-00548, which it is commanded to remand to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court
of Quezon City for proper disposition.
 Conrad and Company Inc. vs. CA et al.
G.R. No. 115115 July 18, 1995

FACTS:
Private respondents are domestic corporations that are engaged in the business of
manufacturing, selling and distributing biscuits and cookies bearing the trademark "SUNSHINE" in the
Philippines. Petitioner is also engaged in the business of importing, selling and distributing biscuits and
cookies in the Philippines Private respondents filed a case against petitioner for importing, selling and
distributing biscuits and cookies, and other food items bearing the trademark “Sunshine Biscuits”. On
April 18, 1988 CONRAD was suddenly designated exclusive importer and dealer of the products of
"Sunshine Biscuits, Inc." for sale in the Philippine market; and on April 21, 1988, per the affidavit of said
Raul Olaya, CONRAD made its first importation, which was continuously repeated up to the present,
altogether consisting of 51,575 cartons and amounting to $579,224.35. Those acts of CONRAD, done
without plaintiffs' consent, were deliberately calculated to mislead and deceive the purchasers by
making them believe that its (CONRAD'S) "Sunshine" products had originated from plaintiffs and thereby
inducing them to patronize those products, all to the damage and prejudice of both the purchasing
public and plaintiffs. In seeking the dismissal of the complaint filed by private respondents with the trial
court, petitioner invoked, among other grounds, litis pendentia, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and
failure to state a cause of action. The trial court, agreeing with petitioner, granted the motion to dismiss
the complaint. Private respondents appealed to the CA and won hence this case.

ISSUE:
W/N The trial court had jurisdiction over this case. (YES)

RULING:
The issue involved in the action is whether CONRAD's acts of importing, selling and distributing
biscuits, cookies and other food items bearing said registered "SUNSHINE" trademark in the Philippines
without the consent of its registrant (FITRITE) constitute infringement thereof in contemplation of Sec.
22 of R.A. 166. The elements that constitute infringement are simply (1) the use by any person, without
the consent of the registrant, (2) of any registered mark or trade-name in connection with the sale,
business or services, among other things, bearing such registered mark or trade-name. This, clearly, is a
factual question that does not require any specialized skill and knowledge for resolution to justify the
exercise of primary jurisdiction by BPTTT. While an application for the administrative cancellation of a
registered trademark on any of the grounds enumerated in Section 176 of Republic Act No. 166, as
amended, otherwise known as the Trade-Mark Law, falls under the exclusive cognizance of BPTTT, an
action, however, for infringement or unfair competition, as well as the remedy of injunction and relief
for damages, is explicitly and unquestionably within the competence and jurisdiction of ordinary courts.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED for lack of merit, and the questioned amended decision
of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
 People vs. Sandiganbayan and Plaza
G.R. No. 169004 September 15, 2010

FACTS:
Respondent Plaza, a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Toledo City, Cebu, at the time
relevant to this case, with salary grade 25, had been charged in the Sandiganbayan with violation of
Section 89 of P.D.1445. for his failure to liquidate the cash advances he received on December 19, 1995
in the amount of ₱33,000.00. Thereafter, Plaza files a motion to dismiss the case for lack of
jurisdiction, without prejudice to its filing before the proper court which the Sandiganbayan did.
Petitioner contends that the Sandiganbayan has criminal jurisdiction over cases involving public officials
and employees enumerated under Section 4 (a) (1) of P.D. 1606, whether or not occupying a position
classified under salary grade 27 and above, who are charged not only for violation of R.A. 3019, R.A.
1379 or any of the felonies included in Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code,
but also for crimes committed in relation to office.

ISSUE:
W/N the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod
whose salary grade is below 27 and charged with violation of The Auditing Code of the Philippines.
(YES)

RULING:
The Court ruled 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 the same
law. 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. Clearly, as decided in the earlier case and by simple
application of the pertinent provisions of the law, respondent Plaza, a member of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod during the alleged commission of an offense in relation to his office, necessarily falls within
the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

The 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. Thus, under
said paragraph b, what determines the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction is the official position or rank of the
offender – that is, whether he is one of those public officers or employees enumerated in paragraph a of
Section 4.

WHEREFORE, the Petition dated September 2, 2005 is hereby GRANTED and the Resolution of the
Sandiganbayan (Third Division) dated July 20, 2005 is hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. Let the case be
REMANDED to the Sandiganbayan for further proceedings.
 People vs. Montejo et al.
G.R. No. L-14595 May 31, 1960

FACTS:
Mayor Leroy Brown of Basilan City, Det. Joaquin Pollisco, Patrolman Graciano Lacema, and other
co-accused where charged with murder. Mayor Brown appointed and provided his co-accused with
pistols and high power guns and established a camp at Tipo-Tipo which is under his command,
supervision and control, where his codefendants were stationed, entertained criminal complaints and
conducted the corresponding investigations, as well as assumed the authority to arrest and detain
persons without due process of law and without bringing them to the proper court, and that, in line with
this set-up established by said Mayor of Basilan City as such, and acting upon his orders, his
codefendants arrested and maltreated Awalin Tebag, who died in consequence thereof. the defendants
made it appear that Tebag was a member of a band of armed bandits who attacked them prompting
them to shoot Tebag to death. Respondent Judge not only rejected several pieces of evidence for the
prosecution, in contrast to the liberality with which the lower court admitted, as evidence for the
defense, records of supposed achievements of the Tipo-Tipo sub-station, but also allowed a senator to
appear as defense for the co-accused.

ISSUE:
W/N Mayor Brown’s actions are in relation to his office. (YES)

RULING:
The Court ruled that, although public office is not an element of the crime of murder in abstract,
as committed by the main respondents herein, according to the amended information, the offense
therein charged is intimately connected with their respective offices and was perpetrated while they
were in the performance, though improper or irregular, of their official functions. Indeed, they
had no personal motive to commit the crime and they would not have committed it had they not held
their aforesaid offices. The co-defendants of respondent Leroy S. Brown, obeyed his instructions
because he was their superior officer, as Mayor of Basilan City.
 People vs. Magallanes et al.
G.R. Nos. 118013-14 October 11, 1995

FACTS:
On 13 January 1994, two informations for kidnapping for ransom with murder were filed with
the RTC of Bacolod City against fourteen persons, five of whom are members of the PNP. Private
prosecutors moved for the transmittal of the records of the cases to the Sandiganbayan on the ground
that, pursuant to our decision of 11 March 1994 in Republic vs. Asuncion, the trial court has no
jurisdiction over the cases because the offenses charged were committed in relation to the office of the
accused PNP officers. The trial court, thru respondent Judge, ruled that the Sandiganbayan does not
have jurisdiction over the subject cases because the informations do not state that the offenses were
committed in relation to the office of the accused PNP officers. Citing People vs. Montilla, it held that
the allegation in the informations that the accused PNP officers took advantage of their office in the
commission of the offense charged is merely an allegation of an aggravating circumstance. It further
stated that a public office is not a constituent element of the offense of kidnapping with murder nor is
the said offense intimately connected with the office. It then denied the motion for transfer of the
records to the Sandiganbayan and declared that the trial of the case should continue.

The prosecution, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, filed with us a petition for
certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with a prayer for a temporary restraining order challenging the
refusal of the respondent Judge to transfer the cases to the Sandiganbayan.

ISSUE:
W/N the RTC have jurisdiction to try the case despite the offenses committed by some of the
accused were in relation to their office. (YES)

RULING:
Ordinarily, jurisdiction once acquired is not affected by subsequent legislative enactment placing
jurisdiction in another tribunal. It remains with the court until the case is finally terminated. 37 Hence,
the Sandiganbayan or the courts, as the case may be, cannot be divested of jurisdiction over cases filed
before them by reason of R.A. No. 7975. They retain their jurisdiction until the end of the litigation.
In the instant case, the Sandiganbayan has not yet acquired jurisdiction over the subject criminal cases,
as the informations were filed not before it but before the Regional Trial Court. Even if we labor under
the foregoing assumption that the informations in the subject cases do charge the respondent PNP
officers with offenses committed in relation to their office so that jurisdiction thereof would fall under
the Sandiganbayan, and assuming further that the informations had already been filed with the said
tribunal but hearing thereon has not begun yet, the Sandiganbayan can no longer proceed to hear the
cases in view of the express provision of Section 7 of R.A. No. 7975. That section provides that upon the
effectivity of the Act, all criminal cases in which trial has not yet begun in the Sandiganbayan shall be
referred to the proper courts. Hence, cases which were previously cognizable by the Sandiganbayan
under P.D. No. 1606, as amended, but are already under the jurisdiction of the courts by virtue of the
amendment introduced by R.A. No. 7975, shall be referred to the latter courts if hearing thereon has not
yet been commenced in the Sandiganbayan.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The challenged orders are AFFIRMED, and the motions for
bail of accused-respondents Jeanette Dumancas and Nicolas Torres are DENIED.
The temporary restraining order issued on 12 December 1994 is LIFTED, and the Regional Trial Court of
Bacolod City is directed to immediately resume the hearings of Criminal Cases Nos. 15562 and 15563
and to thereafter resolve them with reasonable and purposeful dispatch.
 Bartolome vs. People
G.R. No. L-64548 July 7, 1986

Facts:
Bartolome and his co-accused are charged with the crime of Falsification of Official Document as
defined and penalized under paragraph 4, Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. They prepared and
falsified an official document by making it appear in said document that accused Bartolome had taken
and passed the Career Service Professional Qualifying Examination on 'May 2, 1976' with a rating of
'73.35% in Manila' and that he was a 4th Year AB student at the Far Eastern University, when in truth
and in fact, as both accused well knew, Bartolome had not taken and passed the same nor was he a 4th
Year AB student, thereby making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.

Issue:
W/N the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case. (NO)

Ruling:
The Court ruled that there was no showing that the alleged falsification was committed by the
accused, as a consequence of, and while they were discharging, official functions. The information does
not allege that there was an intimate connection between the discharge of official duties and the
commission of the offense. Besides, falsification of an official document may be committed not only by
public officers and employees but even by private persons. Public office is not an essential ingredient of
the offense such that the offense cannot exist without the office. Therefore, as the alleged falsification
was not an offense committed in relation to the office of the accused, it did not come under the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. It follows that all its acts in the instant case are null and void ab initio.

WHEREFORE, the petitions are granted and the decision of the Sandiganbayan is set aside, without any
pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.
 People vs. Leoparte
G.R. No. 85328 July 4, 1990

FACTS:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court convicting accused-appellant Bienvenido
Leoparte of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. Petitioner abducted the complainant
Marinel Idea, against her will and consent by taking and carrying her away from her home and had carnal
knowledge several times with her. On August 29, 1988, a judgment of conviction was rendered by the trial
court. Appellant is now before us, seeking the reversal of said decision claiming, among other things, that the
trial court had no jurisdiction.

ISSUE:
W/N the RTC acquired jurisdiction to take cognizance of this case according to Article 244 of
the Revised Penal Code. (YES)

RULING:
The complaint by the offended party provided for in Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code does
not determine the jurisdiction of the courts over crimes against chastity but is only a condition
precedent for the exercise by the proper authorities of the power to prosecute. The failure of appellant
to raise said issue at the trial court barred him from raising said issue on appeal, in consonance with Rule
117 of the Rules of Court. Article 344 was not enacted for the specific purpose of benefiting the accused.
When it is said that the requirement in Article 344 that a complaint of the offended party or her
relatives is jurisdictional, what is meant is that it is the complaint that starts the prosecutory proceeding.
It is not the complaint which confers jurisdiction on the court to try the case. The court's jurisdiction is
vested in it by the Judiciary Law. Such condition has been imposed out of consideration for the offended
woman and her family who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through with the
scandal of a public trial.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and accused-appellant
Bienvenido Leoparte is ACQUITTED of the crime charged, with costs de oficio. His immediate release
from confinement is hereby ordered unless he is being held on other legal grounds.
 Union Bank et al. vs. People
G.R. No. 192565 February 28, 2012

FACTS:
The petition seeks to reverse and set aside the RTC decision dismissing the petition for certiorari
of petitioners Union Bank and Desi Tomas (collectively, the petitioners). The RTC found that the MTC did
not commit any grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash the information for perjury
filed by Tomas. Tomas was charged in court for perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code for
making a false narration in a Certificate against Forum Shopping. The accusation stemmed from Union
Bank’s two complaints for sum of money against the spouses Eddie and Eliza Tamondong and a John
Doe. Both complaints showed that Tomas executed and signed the Certification against Forum
Shopping.

Tomas filed a Motion to Quash, citing that the venue was improperly laid since it is the Pasay
City court (where the Certificate against Forum Shopping was submitted and used) and not the MeTC-
Makati City (where the Certificate against Forum Shopping was subscribed) that has jurisdiction over the
perjury case. The MeTC-Makati City denied the Motion to Quash, ruling that it has jurisdiction over the
case since the Certificate against Forum Shopping was notarized in Makati City. The petitioners filed a
petition for certiorari before the RTC-Makati City to annul and set aside the MeTC-Makati City orders on
the ground of grave abuse of discretion citing that the venue and jurisdiction should be in the place
where the false document was presented.

ISSUE:
W/N Pasay MTC has jurisdiction of the case over Makati MTC. (NO)

RULING:
The Court denied the petition and hold that the MeTC-Makati City is the proper venue and the
proper court to take cognizance of the perjury case against the petitioners. Venue is an essential
element of jurisdiction in criminal cases. It determines not only the place where the criminal action is to
be instituted, but also the court that has the jurisdiction to try and hear the case. The reason for this rule
is two-fold. First, the jurisdiction of trial courts is limited to well-defined territories such that a trial court
can only hear and try cases involving crimes committed within its territorial jurisdiction. Second, laying
the venue in the locus criminis is grounded on the necessity and justice of having an accused on trial in
the municipality of province where witnesses and other facilities for his defense are available. The
criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court or municipality or territory where the offense
was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred provided in Section 15(a), Rule 110 of
the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The allegations in the Information sufficiently support a finding that the crime of perjury was
committed by Tomas within the territorial jurisdiction of the MeTC-Makati City. The first element of the
crime of perjury, the execution of the subject Certificate against Forum Shopping was alleged in the
Information to have been committed in Makati City. Likewise, the second and fourth elements, requiring
the Certificate against Forum Shopping to be under oath before a notary public, were also sufficiently
alleged in the Information to have been made in Makati City

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the petition for lack of merit. Costs against the
petitioners.
 Miranda vs. Tuliao
G.R. No. 158763 March 31, 2006

FACTS:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the
Decision of the CA in and its Resolution denying petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration. On 8 March
1996, two burnt cadavers were discovered in Purok Nibulan, Ramon, Isabela, which were later identified
as the dead bodies of Vicente Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao, son of private respondent Virgilio Tuliao.
Respondent Tuliao filed a criminal complaint for murder against petitioners, Boyet dela Cruz, and Amado
Doe, and submitted the sworn confession of SPO2 Maderal. In the hearing of the urgent motion on 6
July 2001, Judge Tumaliuan noted the absence of petitioners and issued a Joint Order denying said
urgent motion on the ground that, since the court did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons, the
motion cannot be properly heard by the court. On 25 June 2001, Acting Presiding Judge Wilfredo
Tumaliuan issued warrants of arrest against petitioners and SPO2 Maderal. On 17 August 2001, the new
Presiding Judge Anastacio D. Anghad took over the case and issued a Joint Order reversing the Joint
Order of Judge Tumaliuan. Consequently, he ordered the cancellation of the warrant of arrest issued
against petitioner Miranda. This Court issued a Resolution resolving to grant the prayer for a temporary
restraining order against Judge Anghad from further proceeding with the criminal cases. Respondent
Tuliao filed with this Court a Motion to Cite Public Respondent in Contempt, which was referred to the
CA. The CA rendered the assailed decision granting the petition and ordering the reinstatement of the
criminal cases in the RTC of Santiago City.

ISSUE:
W/N the CA had jurisdiction over the petitioners’ case. (YES)

RULING:
Except in applications for bail, it is not necessary for the court to first acquire jurisdiction over
the person of the accused to dismiss the case or grant other relief. The outright dismissal of the case
even before the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused is authorized under Section
6(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure
(Sec. 12a). The voluntary appearance of the accused, whereby the court acquires jurisdiction over his
person, is accomplished either by his pleading to the merits (such as by filing a motion to quash or other
pleadings requiring the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction thereover, appearing for arraignment,
entering trial) or by filing bail. Custody of the law is required before the court can act upon the
application for bail, but is not required for the adjudication of other reliefs sought by the defendant
where the mere application therefor constitutes a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the accused. There is, however, an exception to the rule that filing pleadings seeking
affirmative relief constitutes voluntary appearance, and the consequent submission of one’s person to
the jurisdiction of the court. This is in the case of pleadings whose prayer is precisely for the avoidance
of the jurisdiction of the court, which only leads to a special appearance.

To recapitulate what we have discussed so far, in criminal cases, jurisdiction over the person of
the accused is deemed waived by the accused when he files any pleading seeking an affirmative relief,
except in cases when he invokes the special jurisdiction of the court by impugning such jurisdiction over
his person. Therefore, in narrow cases involving special appearances, an accused can invoke the
processes of the court even though there is neither jurisdiction over the person nor custody of the law.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated 18 December 2002 and the Resolution dated 12
June 2003 of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED, with the modification that Criminal Cases No.
36-3523 and No. 36-3524 be transferred to and raffled in the Regional Trial Court of the City of Manila.
 Allado et al. vs. Diokno et. al.
G.R. No. 113630 May 5, 1994

FACTS:
Petitioners are partners of the Law Firm of Salonga, Hernandez and Allado. In the practice of
their profession, and on the basis of an alleged extrajudicial confession of a security guard, they have
been accused of the heinous crime of kidnapping with murder by the Presidential Anti-Crime
Commission and ordered arrested without bail by respondent judge. The focal source of the information
against petitioners is the sworn statement of Security Guard Escolastico Umbal, a former Philippine
Constable, implicating them as the brains behind the alleged kidnapping and slaying of one Eugen
Alexander Van Twest, a German national. Petitioners contend that respondent judge acted with grave
abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction in "whimsically holding that there is probable cause
against petitioners without determining the admissibility of the evidence against petitioners and
without even stating the basis of his findings," and in "relying on the Resolution of the Panel and their
certification that probable cause exists when the certification is flawed."

ISSUE:
W/N the arrest warrant issued by the respondent judge is valid to hold petitioners in
detention. (NO)

RULING:
Before issuing a warrant of arrest, the judge must satisfy himself that based on the evidence
submitted there is sufficient proof that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested
is probably guilty thereof. In the Order of respondent judge, it is expressly stated that "[t]his court after
careful evaluation of the evidence on record, believes and rules that probable cause exists; and
therefore, a warrant of arrest should be issued." This Court is unable to see how respondent judge
arrived at such ruling. We have painstakingly examined the records and we cannot find any support for
his conclusion. On the contrary, we discern a number of reasons why we consider the evidence
submitted to be insufficient for a finding of probable cause against petitioners. The Presidential Anti-
Crime Commission relies heavily on the sworn statement of Security Guard Umbal who supposedly
confessed his participation in the alleged kidnapping and murder of Van Twest. For one, there is serious
doubt on Van Twest's reported death since the corpus delicti has not been established, nor have his
remains been recovered. The credibility of Umbal is badly battered. Certainly, his bare allegations, even
if the State invokes its inherent right to prosecute, are insufficient to justify sending two lawyers to jail,
or anybody for that matter.

Respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the warrant for the arrest of
petitioners it appearing that he did not personally examine the evidence nor did he call for the
complainant and his witnesses in the face of their incredible accounts. Instead, he merely relied on the
certification of the prosecutors that probable cause existed.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is GRANTED. The temporary restraining order we
issued on 28 February 1994 in favor of petitioners is made permanent. The warrant of arrest issued
against them is SET ASIDE and respondent Judge Roberto C. Diokno is ENJOINED from proceeding any
further against herein petitioners. SO ORDERED
 Bonifacio et al. vs. RTC Makati
G.R. No. 184800 May 5, 2010

FACTS:
Petitioners assail the issuances of Branch 149 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati (public
respondent) which denied their motion to quash the Amended Information indicting them for libel, and
Joint Resolution2 of August 12, 2008 denying reconsideration of the first issuance. Private respondent,
representing the Yuchengco family, filed before the Makati City Prosecutor’s Office, for thirteen counts
of libel) against the petitioners. Petitioners are disgruntled planholders of Pacific Plans, Inc. (PPI) - a
wholly owned subsidiary of Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation, also owned by the Yuchengco
Group of Companies (YGC) - who had previously purchased traditional pre-need educational plans but
were unable to collect thereon or avail of the benefits thereunder after PPI, due to liquidity concerns,
filed for corporate rehabilitation with prayer for suspension of payments before the Makati RTC.
Petitioners controlled and moderated on the internet a blogspot “[Link]”, as
well as a yahoo e-group at “no2pep2010@[Link]”. Private respondent further alleged that
upon accessing the above-stated websites in Makati on various dates and was appalled to read
numerous articles [numbering 13], maliciously and recklessly caused to be published by containing
highly derogatory statements and false accusations, relentlessly attacking the Yuchengco Family.

Petitioners filed before the public respondent, a Motion to Quash the Information the Criminal
Case on the grounds that it failed to vest jurisdiction on the Makati RTC; the acts complained of in the
Information are not punishable by law since internet libel is not covered by Article 353 of the RPC; and
the Information is fatally defective for failure to designate the offense charged and the acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense of libel.

ISSUE:
W/N the RTC of Makati had jurisdiction to try the libel case. (NO)

RULING:
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. This
principle acquires even greater import in libel cases, given that Article 360, as amended, specifically
provides for the possible venues for the institution of the criminal and civil aspects of such cases.
Whenever possible, the place where the written defamation was printed and first published should
likewise be alleged. That allegation would be a sine qua non if the circumstance as to where the libel
was printed and first published is used as the basis of the venue of the action. 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 pre-condition becomes
necessary in order to forestall any inclination to harass.

To credit Private respondents’ premise of equating his 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. It hardly requires much
imagination to see the chaos that would ensue in situations where the website’s author or writer, a
blogger or anyone who posts messages therein could be sued for libel anywhere in the Philippines that
the private complainant may have allegedly accessed the offending website. The public respondent
committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to quash the Amended Information.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Order of April 22, 2008 and the Joint Resolution of
August 12, 2008 are hereby SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Br. 149 is hereby
DIRECTED TO QUASH the Amended Information in Criminal Case No. 06-876 and DISMISS the case.
 De Lima vs. Guerrero et al.
G.R. No. 229781 October 10, 2017

FACTS:
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Application for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, and
Urgent Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Status Quo Ante Order under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court filed by petitioner Senator Leila De Lima. Petitioner assails the following orders and warrant issued
by respondent judge Hon. Juanita Guerrero of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City finding
probable cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest.

November 2012 to March 2013, in the City of Muntinlupa, accused Leila M. De Lima and her co-
accused, were charged with taking advantage of their public office, all of whom having moral
ascendancy or influence over inmates in the New Bilibid Prison, demand, solicit and extort money from
the high profile inmates in the New Bilibid Prison to support the senatorial bid of De Lima in the May
2016 election; the inmates, not being lawfully authorized by law and through the use of mobile phones
and other electronic devices, traded and traffic dangerous drugs, and thereafter give and deliver to De
Lima, through Ragos and Dayan, the proceeds of illegal drug trading amounting to ₱5,000,000.00 on 24
November 2012, ₱5,000,000.0 on 15 December 2012, and ₱100,000.00 weekly "tara" each from the
high profile inmates in the New Bilibid Prison. Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash, on the grounds that
the RTC lacks jurisdiction over the offense charged against petitioner, among others. Respondent judge
issued the presently assailed Order finding probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest against
De Lima and her co-accused. Petitioner argues that, based on the allegations of the Information, the
Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction to try and hear the case against her. She posits that the Information
charges her not with violation of RA 9165 but with Direct Bribery-a felony within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan given her rank as the former Secretary of Justice with Salary Grade 31.

ISSUE:
W/N the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the violation of R.A. 9165 averred in the
assailed Information over the Sandiganbayan.

RULING:
The Information against De Lima goes beyond an indictment for Direct Bribery under Article 210
of the RPC. Petitioner is being charged not with Direct Bribery but with violation of RA 9165. Taken
together with the other allegations in the Information portray a much bigger picture - Illegal Drug
Trading which necessarily involves various component crimes, not the least of which is the bribery and
corruption of government officials. The Information provides that De Lima's participation and
cooperation was instrumental in the trading of dangerous drugs by the NBP inmates. Any money and
bribery that may have changed hands to allow the importation of the confiscated drugs are certainly but
trivial contributions in the furtherance of the transnational illegal drug trading - the offense for which
the persons involved should be penalized. The averments on how petitioner asked for and received
money from the NBP inmates simply complete the links of conspiracy between petitioners and the NBP
inmates in willfully and unlawfully trading dangerous drugs through the use of mobile phones and other
electronic devices under Section 5, in relation to Section 3(jj), Section 26(b), and Section 28, of RA 9165.
Granting without conceding that the information contains averments which constitute the elements of
Direct Bribery or that more than one offence is charged or as ill this case, possibly bribery and violation
of RA 9165, still the prosecution has the authority to amend the information at any time before
arraignment provided in Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court.

A plain reading of RA 9165 will reveal that jurisdiction over drug-related cases is exclusively
vested with the Regional Trial Court and no other. The designation of the RTC as the court with the
exclusive jurisdiction over drug-related cases is apparent in the following provisions where it was
expressly mentioned and recognized as the only court with the authority to hear drug-related cases.
With the foregoing disquisitions, the provisional reliefs prayed for, as a consequence, have to be
rejected.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for prohibition and certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The
Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 204 is ordered to proceed with dispatch with Criminal
Case N6.17-165.