Page 1
 SC
P ART 7: VENUE
Lopez v City Judge
G.R. No. L-25795 | October 29, 1966
Dizon, J.
TOPIC: Venue
DOCTRINE: It is settled in criminal actions that place where offense was committed determines the venue of
the action and is an essential element of jurisdiction (US v Pagdayuman).
SUMMARY: Villasor et al filed for the rescission of a contract they entered into w/ Lazatin. Lazatin & TDC in turn
filed a complaint for falsification of a private document (Art 172, RPC) w/ the CFA, and the CFA filed w/ the CCA.
Villasor et al moved for the dismissal of the complaint due to CCA not having jurisdiction but was denied. SC ruled that
CCA did not have jurisdiction due to the crime being consummated in Makati and QC.
PETITIONER: Angelina Mejia Lopez, Aurora Mejia Villasor, Roy P. Villasor
RESPONDENT: The City Judge, Cesar L. Paras, Trinidad T. Lazatin, And Terra Development Corporation
FACTS:
Crime Charged: Falsification of Private Document – Prison Correccional, fine <P5000
1. offender committed any acts of Falsification
2. committed in a Private document
3. caused Damage/intended to cause damage
Accused: Villasor et al
Complainant: Lazatin et al
Where first filed: City Court of Angeles – Cesar Paras
 February 1964 - Roy P. Villasor (administrator of the intestate estate of the spouses Manuel M. Mejia and Gloria
Lazatin) together with his co-petitioners and other heirs of the spouses entered into a contract with Lazatin for
the development and subdivision of three parcels of land belonging to said intestate estate.
o Lazatin subsequently transferred his rights under the contract to the Terra Development Corporation
(TDC).
 Months later, Villasor et al filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City (Civil Case No. Q-8344)
for the rescission of said contract for alleged gross and willful violation of its terms.
 Lazatin and TDC in turn, filed with the City Fiscal of Angeles (CFA) a complaint against petitioners for an alleged
violation Art 172 in relation to those of Art 171, par 4, of the RPC.
 The CFA filed with the City Court of Angeles (CCA)
o Villasor et al charged w/ falsification of a private document
 They made it appear in the aforementioned contract that Aurora M. Villasor was the
"guardian" of the minor George L. Mejia and that Angelina M. Lopez was similarly the
"guardian" of the minor Alexander L. Mejia, when they actually weren’t.
 March 7, 1965 – CFA reinvestigated the case upon petition of Villasor et al.
o After the investigation, the petitioners moved for the dismissal of the case mainly on the ground that the
CCA had no jurisdiction over the offense because the private document involved was signed by them
outside the territorial limits of said city. However, resolution of the motion to dismiss was
continuously delayed.
 November 26, 1965 – Because of the delays, Villasor et al ultimately filed with the City Court a motion to quash
upon the ground that said court had no jurisdiction over the offense charged
o Respondents, w/ conformity of the City Fiscal, filed an opposition.
o (Feb 1966) Motion subsequently DENIED. Arraignment was reset.
CRIMPRO (PART 7): VENUE
o Case brought to the SC due to the denial of said motion to quash.
ISSUE + HELD:
W/N City Court of Angeles City has jurisdiction to try and decide Criminal Case No. C-2268 - NO.
 Petitioners not charged with having used a falsified document – they are charged with falsifying a document
because they knowingly stated that Aurora Villasor and Angelina Lopez were the guardians of the Mejia brothers,
when in fact the judicial guardian at that time was Carolina de Castro.
 It is settled in criminal actions that place where offense was committed determines the venue of the action
and is an essential element of jurisdiction (US v Pagdayuman).
 Section 86, Judiciary Act of 1948: Municipal courts have original jurisdiction only over criminal offenses committed
within their respective territorial jurisdiction.
 Lopez and A. Villasor signed the document first in Makati, and second in Quezon City.
 When and where is the falsification deemed consummated or committed?
o Falsification of a private document is consummated when such document is actually falsified with the
intent to prejudice a third person, whether such falsified document is or is not thereafter put to
the illegal use for which it was intended (US v Infante).
o the place where the crime is committed is the place where the document is actually falsified, and
that the improper or illegal use of the document thereafter is in no wise a material or essential element
of the crime of falsification of a private document (US v Barretto)
 Applying the 2 cases above, it appears that private document was “falsified” outside the territorial jd of
Angeles.
o W/N the document was put into illegal use or was signed by the other party w/in Angeles IS NOT AN
ELEMENT. It would also not change the fact that the falsification was done outside of Los Angeles.
o Thus, City Court has no jurisdiction.
 Res: Petitioners filing the motion to quash w/ the CCA assumes that the offense was committed within Angeles
City.
o SC: Nawp. It was the law applicable to a demurrer to an information. An MTQ (Rule 117, ROC) is
broader than a demurrer
o The record of reinvestigation submitted to the City Judge for consideration for resolution of the MTQ
filed by the defendants shows that the offense was committed outside territorial jurisdiction of Angeles
City.
 Re: Propriety of writs
o a court of equity will not issue a writ of certiorari to annul an order of a lower court denying a motion to
quash, nor issue a writ of prohibition to prevent said court from proceeding with the case after such
denial.
 Upon such denial the defendant should enter his plea of not guilty and go to trial and, if
convicted, raise on appeal the same legal questions covered by his motion to quash.
o writs of certiorari and prohibition are intended to annul void proceedings; to prevent the unlawful and
oppressive exercise of legal authority and to provide for a fair and orderly administration of justice
o the lack of jurisdiction of the City Court of Angeles over the criminal offense charged being patent, it
would be highly unfair to compel the parties charged to undergo trial in said court and suffer all the
embarrassment and mental anguish that go with it.
RULING: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that the offense charged in the information filed in
Criminal Case No. C-2268 of the City Court of Angeles City is not within the jurisdiction of said court and that, therefore,
said court is hereby restrained and prohibited from further proceedings therein. Costs against the private respondents.
 Page 2

PEOPLE v. GROSPE 1. W/N RTC Pampanga Br 44 does not have territorial jurisdiction over the two Criminal cases filed before the
G.R. No. L-74053-54 // January 20, 1988 Court NO, the Court has territorial jurisdiction
Melencio-Herrara, J.  The respondent Judge erred in holding that deceit and damage only occurred in Bulacan, where the
checks were issued and where false assurances of it being funded were made.
Topic : Venue  The Solicitor General pointed out that there were two separate penal laws violated which were
Doctrine : In the case of transitional crimes, jurisdiction is conferred to wherever any of the elements of the subject to trial, but have similar facts
crime takes place. o The checks were received by SMC in Guiguinto Bulacan. The checks were issued from
Planters Development Bank Santa Maria, Bulacan Branch.
Petitioner : People of the Philippines and San Miguel Corporation o The checks were forwarded to the SMC Regional Office at San Fernando, Pampanga,
Respondent : Nathaniel M. Grospe and Manuel Parulan where it was delivered and received by the SMC Finance Officer, who deposited it with
the Bank of the Philippine Islands, San Fernando, Pampanga Branch. SMC Depository
Summary : Judge Grospe dismissed the case on the ground that his court did not have territorial jurisdiction Bank.
over the case. The Supreme Court ruled that since the depository bank of SMC is located at San Fernando, Pampanga, o BPI San Fernando, Pampanga received a notice of dishonor due to insufficiency of funds
RTC Pampanga has jurisdiction to try the case. – the dishonored check is the subject of the BP 22 case under Ciminal Case No. 2800.
Facts: o Undergoing similar facts, Criminal Case No. 2813 assails respondent Parulan for violation
Crime Charged B.P. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) and R.P.C. 315 (Estafa) of RPC 315 for having issued a bad check.
Accused Manuel Parulan  The question on whether or not venue was sufficiently conferred in RTC Pampanga is answered by
Complainant San Miguel Corporation Rule 110, Section 14(a) of the Revised Rules of Court
Where First Filed RTC 44 Pampanga o SEC. 14. Place where action is to be instituted —
(a) In all criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the
 Pre-Trial Events: municipality or province wherein the offense was committed or any one of the essential
o Criminal Case 2800 : Manuel Parulan, an authorized wholesale dealer of San Miguel Corporation ingredients thereof took place.
(SMC), was charged for violating BP 22 for having issued a check on June 13, 1983 which was o While the subject check was issued in Guiginto, Bulacan, it was not complete drawn
dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds. thereat, but in San Fernando, Pampanga, where it was delivered. People v Larue: The
o Criminal Case 2813 : Parulan Was charged with RPC 315 for having made out a check on June delivery of the instrument is the final act essential to its consummation as an obligation.
13, 1983 for P11,918.80 for beer purchased from SMC but was refused payment and failed to o As pointed out in the Manzanilla case, jurisdiction or venue is determined by the
redeem said check from SMC for replacement. allegations in the Information, which are controlling (Arches vs. Bellosillo, 81 Phil. 190,
193, cited in Tuzon vs. Cruz, No. L-27410, August 28, 1975, 66 SCRA 235). The
 Trial Court RTC Pampanga Br 44 Information filed herein specifically alleges that the crime was committed in San
o Judge Nathaniel Grospe ruled that that it is difficult to believe the claim of Parulan that the subject Fernando, Pampanga, and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of the Court below.
checks were delivered to SMC blank, thus resulting in the amounts being drawn from insufficient
funds. He has been engaged in the business for some time now that it is hard to believe he will Ruling:
agree to be exposed to much risks and uncertainties by delivering a blank check. WHEREFORE, the Decision of Respondent Judge of February 17, 1986 is hereby set aside and he is hereby ordered to
o Judge Grospe dismissed the cases for lack of jurisdiction, finding that “deceit and damage are the reassume jurisdiction over Criminal Cases Nos. 2800 and 2813 of his Court and to render judgment of either conviction
two essential elements that make up the offenses involving dishonored checks. And in order that or acquittal in accordance with the evidence already adduced during the joint trial of said two cases.
this Court may have jurisdiction to try these cases, it must be established that both or any one of
these elements composing the offenses charged must occur or take place within the are over which
this Court has territorial jurisdiction. Here, however, it is clear that none of these elements took
place or occurred within the jurisdictional area of this Court”
 Checks were issued in Guiguinto, Bulacan
 The drawee bank, Planters Development Bank, was in Santa Maria, Bulacan
o Prosecution contends that there is territorial jurisdiction as their branch of account is at the Bank
of the Philippine Islands San Fernando, Pampanga branch.

 Court of Appeals: NONE  Elevated to the Supreme Court under Rule 45

 Supreme Court:
o Upholds the petition for certiorari

Issues + Held:

CRIMPRO (PART 7): VENUE

 Page 3

Gamboa et al. v. CA o Hence, this appeal.

G.R. No. L-41054 | November 28, 1975
MARTIN, J. Issues + Held:
1. W/N the accusations in the 75 informations only constitute one offense (thus, continuing offense) – NO.
Topic: VENUE (Continuing Offenses) ● Respondent alleges that the 75 incidents of swindling that he committed arose from only one
Doctrine: In continuing offenses, any court which has jurisdiction over any of the places where at least one element of criminal intent, thus, only one case of estafa should be filed against him.
the crime was committed may try the case. Once any one of those courts takes cognizance, it acquires exclusive ● SC disagrees with this interpretation. In each of the 75 incidents, one crime of estafa was committed,
jurisdiction. the respondent having consummated all of the elements for every incident.
○ Respondent didn’t have any prior knowledge of when customers would next make their
payments to the petitioner company. Thus, the 75 incidents can’t have proceeded from
Petitioner: JOSE L. GAMBOA and UNITS OPTICAL SUPPLY COMPANY only one criminal intent.
Respondent: COURT OF APPEALS and BENJAMIN LU HAYCO ● Even though there is no continuing offense in this case, SC briefly explains it anyway.
○ A person charged with a transitory offense may be tried in any jurisdiction where the
Facts: offense is part committed. In transitory or continuing offense in which some acts material
Crime Charged Seventy-five (75) different counts of estafa and essential to the crime and requisite to its consummation occur in one province and
Accused BENJAMIN LU HAYCO some in another, the court of either province has jurisdiction to try the case, it being
Complainant JOSE L. GAMBOA understood that the first court taking cognizance of the case will exclude the other.
Where First Filed Informations for estafa: City Court of Manila (in 12 branches)
Ruling: ACCORDINGLY, the judgment of the Court of Appeals, subject matter of this proceeding, is hereby reversed
Civil Action for Accounting: Court of First Instance of Manila and set aside. The temporary restraining order issued by this Court on August 7, 1975, enjoining the enforcement or
implementation of the said judgment is hereby made permanent. No costs.
● Pre-Trial Events:
o Respondent was a former employee of Units. Petitioners filed 124 complaints of estafa against him
with the City Fiscal of Manila, for collecting payments from customers on many occasions and
depositing them in his own bank account.
o After PI, the City Fiscal filed 75 cases of estafa against respondent. Except as to the dates and
amounts converted, the 75 informations commonly charge that respondent, having collected and
received customers of the company the purchase of goods has converted the sum of money he
collected to his own personal account with a bank.
o A civil action for accounting was also filed against respondent alleging that he discharged the
business functions and prerogatives of the company thru deceit and machinations, duping the
owner of the company into affixing his signature and thumbprint on a SPA executed in favor of
respondent.
▪ Respondent was alleged to have used this SPA to close the owner’s bank accounts and
open new accounts in his own name.

● Trial court (CFI Manila):

o Respondent filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction before CFI Manila, claiming
that the prosecution of the 75 cases against him was oppressive, capricious, and in excess of
jurisdiction of the City Fiscal and City Judges of Manila, because the 75 charges against him
were only components of a single crime of estafa.
▪ CFI denied this petition, leading respondent to appeal to the CA.

● Court of Appeals:
o CA reversed CFI and ruled that the SPA and the series of deposits made by respondent constitute
only one crime of estafa, there being one criminal resolution, and the fact that the different acts
were aimed at accomplishing the purpose of defrauding his employer. Thus, it was a continuing
crime.

● Supreme Court:

CRIMPRO (PART 7): VENUE

 Page 4

Ibasco vs CA was filed

G.R. No. 117488 – Sept 5, 1996
J. Davide Jr.
Topic: Venue
Doctrine: Jurisdiction or venue is determined by the allegations in the information. Violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is in the
nature of a continuing crime. Venue is then determined by the place where the elements of making, issuing, or drawing
of the check and delivery thereof are committed.
Petitioner: Santiago Ibasco
Respondent: CA, People of the Philippines
Case Summary: A BP 22 cases was filed against petitioner Ibasco. However, before submitting his
memorandum, the petitioner's new counsel filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction since, it
is claimed, the checks were "prepared, issued and delivered to the payee, at the office of the accused in Daet,
Camarines Norte”. The court ruled that since BP 22 is in the nature of a continuing crime. Venue is then determined
by the place where the elements of making, issuing, or drawing of the check and delivery thereof are committed.
Facts:
Crime Charged BP 22
(1) the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply to account or for value;
(2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full
upon its presentment; and
(3) subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or
credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered
the bank to stop payment
Accused Santiago Ibasco
Complainant Maria Negro Trivinio
Where First Filed RTC Branch 62 Gumaca, Quezon
● Pre-Trial Events:
o Maria Negro Trivinio and her late husband Manuel Trivinio operate an animal feed mill in Gumaca,
Quezon while accused-appellant Santiago lbasco and his wife operate a piggery in Daet, Camarines
Norte
o On or about October 26, 1983, accused-appellant Santiago lbasco and his wife, came to the
residence of the Trivinios and requested credit accommodation for the supply of ingredients in the
manufacture of animal feeds
o In accordance with the agreed credit arrangement, the Trivinios made three deliveries of darak with
a total value of P51,566.49
o In payment, accused-appellant issued three (3) postdated checks. All checks were drawn against
United Coconut Planters Bank, Daet Branch.
o Upon presentment to the Bank for payment of their due dates, the checks bounced for being drawn
against insufficient funds
o Trivinio spouses notified accused-appellant of the dishonor
o Accused-appellant replied by telegram offering his real property in Daet as
security and invited the Trivinios to come to Daet and inspect the property
o Accused-appellant replied by telegram offering his real property in Daet as
security. He then invited the Trivinios to come to Daet and inspect the
property
o For failure of the accused to settle his account with the Trivinios, the instant case
● Trial court (RTC Gumaca, Quezon):
o There were several Informations filed against Ibasco for violations of BP 22 which were
consolidated and jointly tried
o Upon arraignment, the petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charges.
o RTC of Gumaca, Quezon required the parties to submit their respective
memoranda.
o However, before submitting his memorandum, the petitioner's new counsel filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction since, it is claimed, the checks were "prepared,
issued and delivered to the payee, at the office of the accused in Daet, Camarines Norte”
o RTC denied motion to dismiss: informations alleged that the violations were committed in Barangay
Camohaguin, Gumaca, Quezon, and that pieces of evidence, the affidavits of Maria Negro, the
surviving spouse of Manuel Trivinio who was presented by the defense as a hostile witness,
established that the checks were issued in the said place.
o RTC convicted the petitioner
o Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 was purposely enacted to prevent the proliferation of worthless
checks in the mainstream of daily business and to avert not only the undermining the
Banking System of the country, but also the infliction of damage and injury upon trade
and commerce occasioned by the indiscriminate issuance of such checks. By its very
nature, the offenses defined BP 22 are against public interest while the crime of Estafa is
against property.
o Since the act and commission specified in BP Blg. 22 are not necessarily evil or wrongful
from their nature and neither are they inherently illicit and immoral and considering that
the law which penalize [sic] such act or commission is a special statutory law, the offenses
are considered mala prohibita and considering the rule in cases of mala prohibita, the
only inquiry is whether or not the law has been violated
o Criminal intent is not necessary where the acts are prohibited for reasons of public policy
o The defense of good faith and absence of criminal intent would not prosper in
prosecution for violation
 Court of Appeals:
o Appeal to the CA
o Affirmed RTC Decision
 Supreme Court:
o Appeal to SC denied
Issues + Held:
1. W/N RTC erred in not dismissing the cases for lack of Jurisdiction? NO
o The sworn statement of Maria Trivinio (witness presented by accused-appellant) repudiated the
allegation of the accused in questioning the jurisdiction of this Court between the protestation of
the accused that the place of issuance to be at Daet, Camarines Norte and the positive allegation of
witness Maria Negro Trivinio that the checks were delivered at their residence in Gumaca, Quezon
by the accused.
o The Court gave weight and credence to the testimony of said witness and accused is bound by his
own evidence
o People vs. Grospe: a violation of BP 22 is an offense that appears to be continuing in nature. The
knowledge on the part of maker or drawer of the check of the insufficiency of his funds, which is
an essential ingredient of the offense is by itself a continuing eventuality, whether the accused be
within one territory or another
o Bouncing checks also appears to be continuing in nature. It is true that the offense is committed by
the very fact of its performance
o Bouncing Checks Law penalizes not only the fact of dishonor of a check but also the act of making
or drawing and issuance of a bouncing check

CRIMPRO (PART 7): VENUE


o The case, therefore, could have been filed also where the place where the check
was issued. However, it is likewise true that, knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of the
check of the insufficiency of his funds, which is an essential ingredient of the offense is by itself a
continuing eventuality, whether the accused be within one territory or another jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the offense also lies in the RTC Quezon.
o People vs Manzanilla: jurisdiction or venue is determined by the allegation in the Information, which
are controlling. The Information filed herein specifically alleges that the crime was committed in
San Femando, Pampanga, and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of RTC Pampanga
o In the case at bench it appears that the three (3) checks were deposited in Lucena City.
o The delivery of the instrument is the final act essential to its consummation as an obligation
o Violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is in the nature of a continuing crime.
o Venue is determined by the place where the elements of making, issuing, or drawing of the check
and delivery thereof are committed.
o People vs. Yabut: "the theory is that a person indicted with a transitory
o offense may be validly tried in any jurisdiction where the offense was in part committed. The place
where the bills were written, signed, or dated does not necessarily fix or determine the place where
they were executed. What is of decisive importance is the delivery thereof. The delivery of the
instrument is the final act essential to its consummation as an obligation.”
2. W/N RTC erred in not disregarding the testimony of Maria Negro vda. de Trivinio since it is not clear and
convincing and is incredible? NO
o In her testimony, Maria Negro categorically stated that the three checks were delivered by the
petitioner to their residence in Gumaca, Quezon.
o No oversight on the part of the trial court in giving credence to the testimony of Maria Negro.
Besides, we have repeatedly ruled that the testimony of a lone witness, when credible and
trustworthy, is sufficient to convict
o Not without convincing reason to believe that delivery of the checks was in fact made at Gumaca,
Quezon, it being the place of business of the late Manuel Trivinio and from where the animal feeds
were delivered. Consequently, payment should be considered effected at Gumaca, Quezon.
Ruling: Action DENIED, and the challenged decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 62, Gumaca, Quezon, in
Criminal Cases Nos. 2755-G, 2756-G, and 2757-G is hereby AFFIRMED.
Dissent – NONE
CRIMPRO (PART 7): VENUE
Page 5
Manuel Isip v. People
G.R. No. 170298 – June 26, 2007
J. Chico-Nazario
Topic: Venue
Doctrine: The party that claims that the venue of an action was improperly laid must be the one to prove the same.
Case Summary: Leonardo Jose delivered a 7-carat diamond ring to petitioner Manuel Isip, who was to sell the ring
on commission basis, and return the ring if not sold. However, Manuel misappropriated the ring and never paid Jose.
For this act and others of the same nature, spouses Manuel and Marietta Isip were charged with Estafa before the
RTC of Cavite. Marietta was also charged with violations of BP 22. The RTC convicted Marietta of multiple counts
of Estafa and violations of BP 22, while Manuel was only convicted for one count of Estafa. The CA acquitted
Marietta of all crimes, but affirmed the ruling with respect to Manuel. The petitioner contends that the subject offense
did not occur in Jose’s ancestral home in Cavite, but his actual residence in Manila. Seeing as both Jose and the
spouses Isip live in Manila, mere convenience suggests that the transactions occurred there. The Court rejected this
contention, finding no proof that the offense occurred in Manila, and finding sufficient proof that they occurred in
Cavite.
Facts:
Crime Charged Estafa (RPC Article 315)
Accused Manuel Isip
Complainant Leonardo Jose
Where First Filed Branch 17, RTC of Cavite City
 Petitioner Manuel Isip was charged with Estafa before Branch 17 of the RTC of Cavite.
o Mar. 7, 1984: In the city of Cavite, petitioner Manuel Isip received a 7-carat diamond ring for
men valued at P200,000 from Leonard Jose.
o Petitioner was to sell the ring on commission basis, deliver the proceeds if sold, and if not, to return
the ring by March 15.
o Instead of selling the ring, petitioner misappropriated the same.
 Petitioner’s wife, Dr. Marietta Isip, was charged with 7 counts of violation of BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law)
before the same court.
o Mar. 27, 1984: Also in Cavite, Marietta issued a Pacific Banking Corp. check for P562,000 as
payment for various pieces of jewelry from Leonardo Jose.
o At the time of issue, Marietta knew that her account had insufficient funds.
o The check was dishonored, and Marietta failed to make payment for such.
o Marietta issued bouncing checks 6 other times, in amounts ranging from P25,000 to P150,000.
 Finally, the spouses Isip were also charged with 5 counts of Estafa before the same court.
o Mar. 20, 1984: The spouses received a dome-shaped ring and earrings valued at P120,000 from Jose
in order to sell the same on commission basis.
 However, the spouses misappropriated the same.
 As payment, they gave checks for P90,000 and P25,000, both of which were dishonored
for insufficiency of funds.
 The spouses committed the same offense against Jose 4 other times, issuing checks
ranging from P50,000 to P562,000.
RTC
 When arraigned, petitioner and Marietta Isip both pleaded not guilty. There being only one complainant in
all of the cases, joint trial ensued.
 Prosecution:
o Sometime in 1982, the spouses Isip were introduced to Atty. Leonardo Jose by Nemesio, father of
Leonardo and business associate of the Isips. Nemesio and the Isips were engaged in the buy and
sell of unredeemed jewelry pawned by gambling regulars.

o Needing more capital to finance their operation, the spouses convinced Jose to be their capitalist.
The operation went smoothly until 1984, when the spouses started defrauding Jose.
o Other misappropriated items include: 6 carat men’s ring worth P200,000 (first item to be taken),
pearl choker with diamonds worth P150,000, heart-shaped necklace and baguette necklace worth
P95,000, a bulk assortment of jewelry to be sold to “Balikbayan doctors at a convention in Vigan”
worth P562,000.
o Jose sent demand letters for the bouncing checks, but to no avail.
 Defense: [Important]
o Jose claims that the place where the spouses would pick up the jewelry in Caridad, Cavite was his
ancestral home. However, he was an employee of the Bureau of Customs (BOC), and resided in
Ermita, Manila.
o Meanwhile, the spouses lived in Sta. Mesa, Manila, and conducted business in various provinces,
such as Pampanga and Olongapo City.
o Their version of events:
 In 1982, Marietta started obtaining jewelry from losing players at a casino in Olongapo
City, which she repledged as security for financing she secured from Nemesio Jose.
 After a year, Nemesio ran out of capital, and referred the spouses to his son Leonardo.
 Starting early 1983, Marietta would transact with Jose out of his residence in Ermita,
Manila. Manuel would be present only as a witness.
 Jose would extend various amounts to Marietta, for which Marietta would pledge
jewelry. They agreed that Marietta would sell the jewelry on commission basis and return
the proceeds or the jewelry to Jose.
 In the course of the transactions, Marietta: (1) issued checks to Jose as guarantee for the
jewelry which had already been purchased, (2) returned the unsold jewelry, and (3) as
payment for other jewelry, conveyed personal properties and real properties (in Bataan
and Pampanga) to Jose.
 Jose registered the properties in the names of his son Christian and his wife
Zenaida.
 Thus, all obligations of Marietta were already paid off.
 Moreover, all checks which were initially dishonored have already been settled. In fact,
Jose caused the dismissal of some cases he filed against the spouses.
 When Marietta defaulted in payment, Jose demanded that the spouses sign certain
documents to avoid any misunderstanding – with threat of prosecution before the Cavite
courts.
 In order to maintain good relations, Marietta signed the document
acknowledging obligations to Jose. Manuel merely witnessed the same.
 The spouses later learned that, although all the transactions were
entered into in Manila, Jose filed the subject cases before the Cavite
RTC.
 Ruling: The RTC found Marietta guilty of all 7 counts of violation of BP 22, and 5 counts of Estafa. Manuel
was found guilty of 1 count of Estafa, and acquitted in 4.
o The transactions in these cases were sufficiently shown to have taken place at Jose’s
ancestral house in Cavite while he was on leave from the BOC.
o The defense failed to prove its claims that the transactions occurred in Manila.
o The petitioner was found to have acted as a mere witness in the 4 other Estafa cases, but found
him guilty of misappropriating the 7-carat ring.
CA
 Ruling: The CA acquitted Marietta on all counts of Estafa and violation of BP 22, but affirmed the ruling as
to Manuel’s guilt on 1 count of Estafa.
o The checks were delivered by the spouses and/or the transactions occurred at Jose’s
ancestral home in Cavite City. Thus, the offenses charged took place within RTC Cavite’s
territorial jurisdiction.
CRIMPRO (PART 7): VENUE
Page 6
o Marietta was acquitted of violation of BP 22 since the checks involved were issued prior to 8 August
1984, the dishonor did not give rise to a criminal liability pursuant to Ministry Circular No. 4 of the
Ministry of Justice.
o As for the Estafa cases, since the checks issued by Marietta were dishonored, there was no payment
to speak of.
Issues + Held:
2. W/N the RTC had jurisdiction over the offense – YES. [Relevant issue!]
o Petitioner:
o Just because Jose had an ancestral home in Cavite, it does not mean that the transactions
actually occurred there when the spouses were residents of Manila. Convenience suggests
that the transaction occurred in Manila.
o Just because Jose may have been on leave, it does not mean that the transactions occurred
during such leave or within Cavite.
o 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.
o 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.
o Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the court has jurisdiction to
try the offense allegedly committed therein by the accused. Thus, it cannot take
jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense allegedly committed outside of that
limited territory.
o Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by the
allegations in the complaint or information. And once it is so shown, the court may validly
take cognizance of the case.
o 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.
o In the case at bar, the Court is likewise convinced that the venue was properly laid in the
RTC of Cavite.
o Jose sufficiently showed that the transaction took place in his ancestral home in Cavite
while he was on leave from the BOC.
o Petitioner failed to establish that the transaction occurred in Manila.
 Since it has been shown that venue was properly laid, it is petitioner’s
task to prove otherwise, for it is his claim that the transaction involved
was entered into in Manila. The rule that he who alleges must prove his
allegations applies.
 Petitioner argues that since he and his late wife resided in Manila, convenience
alone suggests that the transaction was entered into in Manila. However, the
fact that Cavite is a bit far from Manila does not mean that the transaction
cannot happen there. Distance will not prevent a person from going to a
distant place to procure goods to sell so that he can earn a living.
3. W/N the evidence sufficiently shows that the petitioner received the ring – YES.
o Petitioner: There is no competent evidence that the ring was actually received by him. Assuming he
signed the receipt showing delivery of the ring, not due to the threat of prosecution but merely to
preserve his friendship with Jose, the fact remains that there is no showing that the ring was actually
delivered.
o The acknowledgment receipt executed by the petitioner is very clear evidence that he received the
ring in question. His claim that he did not receive the ring and merely executed the receipt in order
to preserve his friendship with the complainant deserves scant consideration.
o Petitioner, an astute businessman as he is, is presumed to know the significance, import
and obligation of what he executed and signed.
 Page 7

o It rests on the petitioner to overcome such presumptions.

4. W/N the petitioner’s criminal liability was extinguished by novation – NO.
o Petitioner:
o The properties delivered to the complainant offset whatever balance remained of the
spouses’ obligations – as shown by the complainant’s Affidavits of Desistance and
causing the dismissal of some cases.
o The CA should not have denied the application of the rule of novation because the
rejected claim (that the petitioner did not receive the ring) was an alternative defense, and
its rejection is not a reason to deny the application of the novation rule.
o The claim that the properties conveyed to the complainant were sufficient to offset whatever
balance remained has no basis. If it were true that the properties delivered to complainant were
sufficient, the latter would have caused the dismissal of all, and not some, of the cases.
o Contrary to the petitioner’s argument, the CA did not apply novation in this case because not all
elements of novation are present.
o Four essential requisites: (1) A previous valid obligation; (2) an agreement of all parties
to a new contract; (3) the extinguishment of the old obligation; and (4) the birth of a valid
new obligation.
o In this case, only the first element is present.
o Neither petitioner nor his wife issued a check as payment for the ring, which that could
have extinguished his old obligation and brought to life a new obligation.

Ruling: Petition DENIED.

CRIMPRO (PART 7): VENUE