November-18-cases.docx - VOL 452 Macasaet vs People 255 G.R No 156747 ALLEN A MACASAET NICOLAS V QUIJANO JR and ALFIE petitioners vs THE PEOPLE OF THE

November-18-cases.docx - VOL 452 Macasaet vs People 255 G.R...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 59 pages.

VOL. 452, FEBRUARY 23, 2005 255 Macasaet vs. People G.R. No. 156747. February 23, 2005. * ALLEN A. MACASAET, NICOLAS V. QUIJANO, JR., and ALFIE LORENZO, petitioners, vs . THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and JOSELITO TRINIDAD, respondents. Criminal Procedure; Venue; Libel; In criminal actions, it is a fundamental rule that venue is jurisdictional .—In criminal actions, it is a fundamental rule that venue is jurisdictional. Thus, the place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction. Same; Same; Same; Rules for the possible venues for the institution of the criminal and the civil aspects of libel .—In Agbayani v. Sayo , we summarized the foregoing rule in the following manner: 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 _______________ * SECOND DIVISION. 256 2 56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Macasaet vs. People 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; Jurisdictions; It is jurisprudentially settled that jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information; In resolving a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction, the general rule is that the facts contained in the complaint or information should be taken as they are, exception is where the Rules of Court allow the investigation of facts alleged in a motion to quash such as when the ground invoked is the extinction of criminal liability, prescriptions, double jeopardy or insanity of the accused .—Anent private respondent and OSG’s contention that the supplemental affidavit submitted during the preliminary investigation of this libel suit cured the defect of the information, we find the same to be without merit. It is jurisprudentially settled that jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information. In resolving a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction, the general rule is that the facts contained in the complaint or information should be taken as they are. The exception to this rule is where the Rules of Court allow the investigation of facts alleged in a motion to quash such as when the ground invoked is the extinction of criminal liability, prescriptions, double jeopardy, or insanity of the accused. In
Image of page 1
Image of page 2

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture