Cariaga vs People rigid and strict application thereof which results in

technicalities tending to frustrate substantial justice

FACTS: must always be avoided.
 Petitioner, as the municipal treasurer of Cabatuan,
Isabela with a Salary Grade of 24, was charged with Antiporda, Jr. vs. Garchitorena
three counts of malversation of public funds,
defined under Article 217 of the Revised Penal FACTS:
Code.  Petitioners were charged with the crime of
 The RTC convicted petitioner in the three cases. kidnapping one Elmer Ramos filed before the
 Petitioner, through counsel, in time filed a Notice of Sandiganbayan without claiming that one of the
Appeal, stating that he intended to appeal the trial accused is a public officer who took advantage of
court’s decision to the Court of Appeals. his position.
 The CA dismissed petitioner’s appeal for lack of  The information was amended to effectively
jurisdiction, holding that it is the Sandiganbayan describe the offense charged herein and for the
which has exclusive appellate jurisdiction thereon. court to effectively exercise its jurisdiction over the
 The MR was denied. same by stating that Antiporda took advantage of
 Petitioner, now admitting the procedural error his position.
committed by her former counsel, implores the  Accused filed a motion for new preliminary
Court to relax the Rules to afford her an opportunity investigation and to hold in abeyance and/or recall
to fully ventilate her appeal on the merits and warrant of arrest issued.
requests the Court to endorse and transmit the  The same was denied. The accused subsequently
records of the cases to the Sandiganbayan in the filed a motion to quash the amended information
interest of substantial justice. for lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged
because of the amended information.
ISSUE: Which court has appellate jurisdiction in this  This was denied as well as the MR on the same.
case. Hence, this petition before the Supreme Court.

RULING: ISSUE: Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over

 Sec 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court provides: the subject matter.
Dismissal of improper appeal to the Court of
Appeals. x x x. RULING: YES.
 An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of  They are estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of
Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate the Sandiganbayan.
court but shall be dismissed outright. (emphasis and  The original Information filed with the
underscoring supplied) Sandiganbayan did not mention that the offense
 That appellate jurisdiction in this case pertains to committed by the accused is office-related. It was
the Sandiganbayan is clear. only after the same was filed that the prosecution
 Sec , PD. 1606, as amended by RA 8249, so directs: belatedly remembered that a jurisdictional fact was
Jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan shall exercise omitted therein.
exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:  However, we hold that the petitioners are estopped
 In cases where none of the accused are occupying from assailing the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
positions corresponding to Salary Grade 27 or for in the supplemental arguments to motion for
higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. reconsideration and/or reinvestigation dated June
6758, or military and PNP officers mentioned above, 10, 1997 filed with the same court, it was they who
exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested "challenged the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial Court over the case and clearly stated in their
court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit Motion for Reconsideration that the said crime is
trial court, as the case may be, pursuant to their work connected.
respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas  Jurisdiction is the power with which courts are
Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended. invested for administering justice, that is, for
 The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive hearing and deciding cases.
appellate jurisdiction over final judgments,  In order for the court to have authority to dispose
resolutions or orders of regional trial courts of the case on the merits, it must acquire
whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties.
jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as In the case of Arula vs. Espino it was quite clear that
herein provided. all three requisites, i.e., jurisdiction over the
 Since the appeal involves criminal cases, and the offense, territory and person, must concur before a
possibility of a person being deprived of liberty due court can acquire jurisdiction to try a case.
to a procedural lapse militates against the Courts  It is undisputed that the Sandiganbayan had
dispensation of justice, the Court grants petitioner’s territorial jurisdiction over the case. And we are in
plea for a relaxation of the Rules. accord with the petitioners when they contended
 For rules of procedure must be viewed as tools to that when they filed a motion to quash it was
facilitate the attainment of justice, such that any
 tantamount to a voluntary submission to the Court's  On February 22, 1995, petitioner posted bail. On the
authority. same day he likewise filed, through counsel, a
Manifestation stating that he was posting bail
Cojuangco, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan without prejudice to the Opposition To Issuance of
Warrant of Arrest with Motion For Leave To File a
FACTS: Motion For Reconsideration of the Ombudsman's
 January 12, 1990, a complaint was filed by the Resolution which he filed.
Office of the Solicitor General before the  In a Resolution dated February 20, 1995, the
Presidential Commission on Good Government respondent Sandiganbayan barred petitioner from
(PCGG), petitioner, former Administrator of the leaving the country except upon approval of the
Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA), and the former court.
members of the PCA Governing Board, petitioner  On May 25, 1995, petitioner was conditionally
among them, for violation of Republic Act No. 3019, arraigned pleading not guilty to the Information.
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for having  In the meantime, in a Memorandum dated October
conspired and confederated together and taking 22, 1995, Special Prosecution Officer Victorio U.
undue advantage of their public positions and/or Tabanguil found no probable cause to warrant the
using their powers; authority, influence, filing against petitioner and recommended the
connections or relationship with the former dismissal of the case. The recommendation for
President Ferdinand E. Marcos and former First dismissal was approved by the Honorable
Lady, Imelda Romualdez-Marcos without authority, Ombudsman on November 15, 1996.
granted a donation in the amount of  On December 13, 1996 petitioner filed an Urgent
(P2,000,000.00) to the Philippine Coconut Motion To Dismiss alleging that with the reversal of
Producers Federation (COCOFED), a private entity, the earlier findings of the Ombudsman of probable
using PCA special fund, thereby giving COCOFED cause, there was therefore nothing on record
unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference before the respondent Sandiganbayan which would
through manifest partiality, evident bad faith and warrant the issuance of a warrant of arrest and the
gross inexcusable negligence to the grave (sic) and assumption of jurisdiction over the instant case.
prejudice of the Filipino people and to the Republic
of the Philippines. ISSUES:
 Subsequently, however, the Court ruled that all 1. WON the warrant of arrest issued by
proceedings in the preliminary investigation respondent Sandiganbayan is null and void, or
conducted by the PCGG were null and void and the should now be lifted if initially valid? YES
PCGG was directed to transmit the complaints and 2. WON the Sandiganbayan still acquired
records of the case to the Office of the Ombudsman jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner?
for appropriate action. YES
 In a Resolution dated June 2, 1992, the panel of
investigators recommended the filling of an RATIO:
Information for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 1. Sandiganbayan had two pieces of documents to
3019. consider when it resolved to issue the warrant
 Resolution dated June 2, 1992 was referred by of arrest against the accused:
Assistant Ombudsman Abelardo L. Aportadera, Jr. a. the Resolution dated June 2, 1992 of the
to the Office of the Special Prosecutor for review Panel of Investigators of the Office of the
and if warranted, for the preparation of the criminal Ombudsman recommending the filing of the
information. Information and
 In a memorandum dated July l5, 1992 the Office of b. the Memorandum dated June 16, 1995 of the
the Special Prosecutor affirmed the Office of the Special Prosecutor denying the
recommendation as contained in the Resolution existence of a prejudicial question which will
dated June 2, 1992. warrant the suspension of the criminal case.
 August 19, 1992 then Ombudsman Conrado M. The Sandiganbayan had nothing more to
Vasquez ordered the panel of investigators to support its resolution.
discuss the merits of the prejudicial question posed
by respondent Lobregat. 2. The Sandiganbayan failed to abide by the
 In a Memorandum dated December 1, 1993 the constitutional mandate of personally
panel of investigators recommended that the determining the existence of probable cause
motion to suspend proceedings be granted. before issuing a warrant of arrest. The 2 cited
 On December 3, 1993 then Ombudsman Vasquez document above were the product of
referred for comment to the Office of the Special somebody else’s determination, insufficient to
Prosecutors the Memorandum dated December 1, support a finding of probable cause by the
1993 of the panel of investigators on the issue of Sandiganbayan.
the existence of prejudicial question.
 On February 17, 1995, an order for the arrest of
petitioner was issued by the respondent
Sandiganbayan.
3. In Roberts vs. Court of Appeals, the Court  Subsequently, Hector gave Elizabeth Revenue
struck down as invalid an order for the issuance Official Receipt worth P120,000. However, when
of a warrant of arrest which were based only on she consulted with the BIR, she was informed that
"the information, amended information and the receipts were fake. When confronted, Hector
Joint Resolution", without the benefit of the admitted to her that the receipts were fake and that
records or evidence supporting the prosecutor's he used the P120,000.00 for his other transactions.
finding of probable cause. Elizabeth demanded the return of the money.
4. In Ho vs. People, the Court the respondent  Hector issued in favor of Elizabeth a Bank of
"palpably committed grave abuse of discretion Commerce check in the amount of P120,000.00,
in ipso facto issuing the challenged warrant of deducting from P150,000.00 the P30,000.00 as
arrest on the sole basis of the prosecutor's attorney's fees. When the check was deposited with
findings and recommendation, and without the PCIBank, Makati Branch, the same was
determining on its own the issue of probable dishonored for the reason that the account was
cause based on evidence other than such bare closed.
findings and recommendation.  Notwithstanding repeated formal and verbal
5. With regards to jurisdiction, the rule is well- demands, appellant failed to pay. Thus, the instant
settled that the giving or posting of bail by the case of Estafa was filed against him.
accused is tantamount to submission of his  During arraignment, Hector, acting as his own
person to the jurisdiction of the court. By counsel, entered a plea of "Not Guilty." Allegedly
posting bail, herein petitioner cannot claim due to old age and poor health, and the fact that he
exemption effect of being subject to the lives in Iloilo City, he was unable to attend the pre-
jurisdiction of respondent court. While trial and trial of the case.
petitioner has exerted efforts to continue
disputing the validity of the issuance of the ISSUE: WON the lower court erred in ruling that the
warrant of arrest despite his posting bail, his accused had to present evidence in support of the
claim has been negated when he himself defense of lack of jurisdiction even if it was apparent in
invoked the jurisdiction of respondent court the evidence of the prosecution.
through the filing of various motions that
sought other affirmative reliefs. RULING: No, petition is granted.
6. In La Naval Drug vs. CA , Lack of jurisdiction over  The overarching consideration in this case is the
the person of the defendant may be waived principle that, in criminal cases, venue is
either expressly or impliedly. When a defendant jurisdictional. A court cannot exercise jurisdiction
voluntarily appears, he is deemed to have over a person charged with an offense committed
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the outside its limited territory. In Isip v. People, this
court. If he so wishes not to waive this defense, Court explained:
he must do so seasonably by motion for the  The place where the crime was committed
purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the determines not only the venue of the action but is
court, otherwise, he shall be deemed to have an essential element of jurisdiction. It is a
submitted himself to that jurisdiction. fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired
Moreover, "[w]here the appearance is by by courts in criminal cases, the offense should have
motion for the purpose of objecting to the been committed or any one of its essential
jurisdiction of the court over the person, it must ingredients should have taken place within the
be for the sole and separate purpose of territorial jurisdiction of the court.
objecting to said jurisdiction. If the appearance  Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the
is for any other purpose, the defendant is territory where the court has jurisdiction to take
deemed to have submitted himself to the cognizance or to try the offense allegedly
jurisdiction of the court. Such an appearance committed therein by the accused.
gives the court jurisdiction over the person.  Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person
charged with an offense allegedly committed
Treñas vs. People, 664 SCRA 355, 366 outside of that limited territory.
 Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court over the
FACTS: criminal case is determined by the allegations in the
 In 1999, Margarita Alocilja wanted to buy a house- complaint or information. And once it is so shown,
and-lot in Iloilo City. It was then mortgaged with the court may validly take cognizance of the case.
Maybank.  However, if the evidence adduced during the trial
 The bank manager Joselito Palma recommended shows that the offense was committed somewhere
Hector Treñas to Elizabeth, who was an employee else, the court should dismiss the action for want of
and niece of Margarita, for advice regarding the jurisdiction.
transfer of the title in the name of Margarita.  It has been consistently held by this Court that it is
Hector informed Elizabeth of the expenses for the unfair to require a defendant or accused to undergo
titling of the property. the ordeal and expense of a trial if the court has no
 Thereafter, Elizabeth gave P150,000.00 to Hector jurisdiction over the subject matter or offense or it
who issued a corresponding receipt and prepared a is not the court of proper venue.
Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage.
 Section 15 (a) of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on  The Certification was notarized in Makati City but
Criminal Procedure of 2000 provides that "subject was submitted and used in Pasay City, while the
to existing laws, the criminal action shall be Information against Union Bank and Tomas was
instituted and tried in the court of the municipality filed in Makati.
or territory where the offense was committed or  Tomas filed a Motion to Quash. She argued that the
where any of its essential ingredients occurred." venue was improperly laid since it is the Pasay City
 This fundamental principle is to ensure that the Court (where the Certificate against Forum
defendant is not compelled to move to, and appear Shopping was submitted and used) and not the
in, a different court from that of the province where MeTC-Makati City (where the Certificate against
the crime was committed as it would cause him Forum Shopping was subscribed) that has
great inconvenience in looking for his witnesses and jurisdiction over the perjury case.
other evidence in another place.  The MeTC-Makati City denied the Motion to Quash,
 This principle echoes more strongly in this case, ruling that it has jurisdiction over the case since the
where, due to distance constraints, coupled with his Certificate against Forum Shopping was notarized in
advanced age and failing health, Hectorwas unable Makati City. The MeTC-Makati City also ruled that
to present his defense in the charges against him. the allegations in the Information sufficiently
 In this case, the prosecution failed to show that the charged Tomas with perjury.
offense of estafa under Section 1, paragraph (b) of  The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before
Article 315 of the RPC was committed within the the RTC-Makati City to annul and set aside the
jurisdiction of the RTC of Makati City.There being no MeTC-Makati City orders on the ground of grave
showing that the offense was committed within abuse of discretion.
Makati, the RTC of that city has no jurisdiction over  The petitioners anchored their petition on the
the case. rulings in United States v. Canet and Ilusorio v.
 Hector asserts that nowhere in the evidence Bildner which ruled that venue and jurisdiction
presented by the prosecution does it show that should be in the place where the false document
P150,000 was given to and received by petitioner in was presented.
Makati City.
 The only time Makati City was mentioned was with ISSUE: WON the proper venue of perjury under Art 183
respect to the time when the check provided by should be – Makati City, where the Certificate against
petitioner was dishonored by Equitable-PCI Bank in Forum Shopping was notarized, or Pasay City, where the
its De la Rosa-Rada Branch in Makati. Certification was presented to the trial court.
 Hector asserted that the prosecution witness failed
to allege that any of the acts material to the crime HELD:
of estafa had occurred in Makati City. Thus, the trial  The SC denied the petition and held that the MeTC-
court failed to acquire jurisdiction over the case. Makati City is the proper venue and the proper
 Aside from the lone allegation in the Information, court to take cognizance of the perjury case against
no other evidence was presented by the the petitioners.
prosecution to prove that the offense or any of its  The criminal charged was for the execution by
elements was committed in Makati City. Tomas of an affidavit that contained a falsity. Article
 The rule is settled that an objection may be raised 183 of the RPC is indeed the applicable provision;
based on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction  thus, jurisdiction and venue should be determined
over the offense charged, or it may be considered on the basis of this article which penalizes one who
motuproprio by the court at any stage of the “makes an affidavit, upon any material matter
proceedings or on appeal. before a competent person authorized to
 Moreover, jurisdiction over the subject matter in a administer an oath in cases in which the law so
criminal case cannot be conferred upon the court by requires.”
the accused, by express waiver or otherwise.  The constitutive act of the offense is the making of
 That jurisdiction is conferred by the sovereign an affidavit; thus, the criminal act is consummated
authority that organized the court and is given only when the statement containing a falsity is
by law in the manner and form prescribed by law. subscribed and sworn before a duly authorized
person.
Union Bank of the Philippines vs. People  Based on these considerations, SC held that its
ruling in Sy Tiong is more in accord with Article 183
FACTS: of the RPC and Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000
 Desi Tomas executed and signed the Certification Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. To reiterate
against Forum Shopping. Then, she was charged of for the guidance of the Bar and the Bench, the
deliberately violating Article 183 of the RPC crime of perjury committed through the making of a
(perjury) “by falsely declaring under oath in the false affidavit under Article 183 of the RPC is
Certificate against Forum Shopping in the second committed at the time the affiant subscribes and
complaint that she did not commence any other swears to his or her affidavit since it is at that time
action or proceeding involving the same issue in that all the elements of the crime of perjury are
another tribunal or agency”. executed.
 When the crime is committed through false Miranda vs. Tuliao, 486 SCRA 377
testimony under oath in a proceeding that is neither
criminal nor civil, venue is at the place where the Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan, 603 SCA 348
testimony under oath is given.
 If in lieu of or as supplement to the actual testimony David vs. Agbay, G.R. No. 199113, March 18, 2015
made in a proceeding that is neither criminal nor
civil, a written sworn statement is submitted, venue Reyes vs. Camilon, 192 SCRA 445
may either be at the place where the sworn
statement is submitted or where the oath was Brocka vs. Enrile, 192 SCRA 183
taken as the taking of the oath and the submission
are both material ingredients of the crime People vs. Yecyec, 739 SCRA 719
committed.
 In all cases, determination of venue shall be based Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Reynaldo,
on the acts alleged in the Information to be 627 SCRA 88
constitutive of the crime committed.

Magno vs. People, 647 SCRA 362, 371

Fukuzume vs. People, 474 SCRA 570, 583

Cojuangco, Jr. vs. Republic, 686 SCRA 472, 505

Atienza vs. People, G.R. No. 188694, February 12, 2014

Soller vs. Sandiganbayan, 357 SCRA 677, 683

Mobilia Products vs. Umezawa, 452 SCRA 736, 761-762

Lacson vs. Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA 298, 325

Rapsing vs. Ables, 684 SCRA 195, 200

People vs. Buissan, 105 SCRA 547, 552-553

People vs. Purisima, 69 SCRA, 69 SCRA 341, 347

People vs. Lagon, 185 SCRA 442, 446

Palana vs. People, 534 SCRA 296, 302

Asistio vs. People, G.R. No. 200465, April 20, 2015

People vs. Cawaling, 293 SCRA 267, 288

Atienza vs. People, G.R. No. 188694, February 12, 2014

People vs. Munar, 53 SCRA 278, 282

Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29

Pangilinan vs. CA, 321 SCRA 51, 59

Foz, Jr. vs. People, 603 SCRA 124, 133-134

Valdepeñas vs. People, 16 SCRA 871, 875

Jimenez vs. Sorongon, 687 SCRA 151

Gimenez vs. Nazareno, 160 SCRA 4

People vs. Rivera, 597 SCRA 299

David vs. Agbay, G.R. N0. 199113, March 18, 2015