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
