LOPEZ v CITY JUDGE

18 SCRA 616DIZON, October 29, 1966

NATURE
Petition for review on Certiorari and Prohibition
FACTS
-Petitioners (Roy Villasor, Angelina Meijia Lopez andAurora Mejia Villasor) and other heirs
of spousesM a n u e l   M e i j i a a n d   G l o r i a   L a z a t i n   e n t e r e d   i n t o   a contract with
respondent Trinidad Lazatin for thedevelopment and subdivision of  3 parcels
of landbelonging to the intestate estate. Lazatin transferredhis rights to Terra Dev’t Co (TDC).-
Petitioners and co-heirs filed an action in CFI QC forrescission of said contract with
Lazatin for allegedgross and willful violation of its terms.-Respondents (Lazatin
and TDC) filed with
Fiscal’sO f f i c e   o f   C i t y   o f   A n g e l e s   a   c o m p l a i n t   a g a i n s t petitioners for
violation of A172 in relation
to A171,par4, RPC. Preliminary investigation conducted.Fiscal filed with Court  in
Angeles City informationcharging  petitioners with
crime of falsification of private document. Allegedly, Aurora and
Angelinam a d e   i t   a p p e a r t h a t t h e y   w e r e   t h e g u a r d i a n s   o f   minors George and
Alexander Meijia (sons of thespouses?) when they weren’t the guardians at thedate
of the execution of the document, a certain Carolina M. de Castro was the judicial
guardian of thesaid minors).-Petitioners asked for a reinvestigation. Angeles CityFiscal
reinvestigated to give them opportunity topresent exculpatory evidence. After
reinvestigation,parties charged moved for the dismissal of the case
mainly on the ground that the City Court of  Angeles had
no jurisdiction over the offensebecause the private document that
containedthe alleged false statement of fact was signedby them outside
the territorial limits of saidcity
(One in Makati, the other one in QC).-However, the resolution of their motion to
dismisswas delayed and the City Court already set
theircriminal case for arraignment. Petitioners securedseveral postponements of the
arraignment. But sinceCity Fiscal continually failed to act on their motion todismiss, petitioners
filed a motion to quash
instead,o n   t h e   g r o u n d   t h a t   c o u r t   h a d   n o   j u r i s d i c t i o n . Respondents (with
conformity of City Fiscal) filed anopposition to the motion to quash. Respondent
judged e n i e d   m o t i o n   t o   q u a s h ,   s e t   a r r a i g n m e n t .   S o petitioners filed present
action.
ISSUE
1. WON City Court of Angeles City had jurisdiction
tot r y   a n d   d e c i d e   t h e   c r i m i n a l   c a s e   f o r   a l l e g e d falsification of a private
document allegedly done byt h e p a r t i e s n a m e d i n t h e i n f o e v e n i f t h e a c t s
o f   falsification was allegedly done in Makati and QC,and thus outside the jurisdiction of
said court
Other procedural issues
2 .   W O N t h e   m o t i o n t o   q u a s h w a s   i m p r o p e r , a n d should not be allowed since by
filing the said motion,the petitioners necessarily assumes the truth of theallegation of the
information to the effect that
theo f f e n s e   w a s   c o m m i t t e d   w i t h i n   t h e   t e r r i t o r i a l  jurisdiction of Angeles
City3 .   W O N   t h e   p r a y e r   f o r   w r i t s   o f   c e r t i o r a r i   a n d prohibition is proper
HELD
1. NO.
 Ratio.
The place where the criminal offense was committed not only
determines the venueof the action but is an essential element
of  jurisdiction
Reasoning.
Petitioners are charged with havingfalsified a private document, not using
a falsifieddocument, so it is essential to determine when
andw h e r e   t h e   o f f e n s e   o f   f a l s i f i c a t i o n   o f   a   p r i v a t e document is deemed consum
mated or committed. The crime of falsification of a private document
isc o n s u m m a t e d   w h e n   s u c h   d o c u m e n t   i s   a c t u a l l y falsified with the intent to
prejudice a 3
rd
person,whether such falsified document is or is not put touse illegally. The  improper
and illegal use of thedocument is not material or essential element of thecrime of
falsification of a private document [US vs. Infante, US vs. Barreto]2. NO
Ratio.
 
 The motion to quash now provided for in Rule117 of the Rules of Court is manifestly
broader ins c o p e t h a n   t h e d e m u r r e r ,   a s i t   i s n o t   l i m i t e d   t o defects apparent
upon the face of the complaint
ori n f o r m a t i o n   b u t   e x t e n d s   t o   i s s u e s   a r i s i n g   o u t   o f   extraneous facts, as shown by
the circumstance that,among the grounds for a motion to quash, Section 2of said Rule provides
for former jeopardy or acquittal,extinction of criminal action or liability, insanity of  the
accused etc., which necessarily involve questionsof fact in the determination of which a
preliminarytrial is required.
Reasoning.
The argument of the respondents referto the now obsolete demurrer to an information.3. YES
Ratio.
 
 The general rule is that a court of equity willnot issue a writ of certiorari to annul an
order of alower court denying a motion to quash, nor issue
aw r i t   o f   p r o h i b i t i o n   t o   p r e v e n t   s a i d   c o u r t   f r o m proceeding with the case
after such denial, it beingthe rule that upon such denial the defendant shoulde n t e r h i s p l e a
o f n o t g u i l t y a n d g o t o t r i a l a n d , i f   convicted, raise on appeal the same legal
questionscovered by his motion to quash. In this as well as inother jurisdictions, however,
this is no longer thehard and fast rule.-
T h e   w r i t s   o f   c e r t i o r a r i   a n d   p r o h i b i t i o n ,   a s extraordinary legal
remedies, are, in the ultimateanalysis, intended to  annul
void proceedings; toprevent the unlawful and oppressive exercise of legala u t h o r i t y
a n d   t o   p r o v i d e   f o r a   f a i r   a n d o r d e r l y administration of justice.
Reasoning.
In several cases, the court already tookcognizance of said writs, overlooking the flaw in
thep r o c e d u r e   f o l l o w e d   i n   t h e   i n t e r e s t   o f   a   m o r e e n l i g h t e n e d   a n d   s u b s t
a n t i a l   j u s t i c e .   T h e   l a c k   o f    jurisdiction of the City Court of Angeles is patent andit would
be highly unfair to compel the petitioners
tou n d e r g o   t r i a l   i n   s a i d   c o u r t   a n d   s u f f e r   a l l   t h e embarrassment and mental
anguish that go with it.
Dispositive
W H E R E F O R E ,   j u d g m e n t   i s   h e r e b y rendered declaring that the offense charged
in theinformation filed in Criminal Case No. C-2268 of
theC i t y   C o u r t   o f   A n g e l e s   C i t y   i s   n o t   w i t h i n   t h e  jurisdiction of said
 court and that, therefore,
saidc o u r t   i s   h e r e b y   r e s t r a i n e d   a n d   p r o h i b i t e d   f r o m further proceedings therein.
Costs against the privaterespondents.