#9 MONDIGUING VS ABAD

FACTS: Alipio Mondiguing and Andres Dunuan are accused of double murder, frustrated
murder and attempted murder in Court of First Instance (CFI) of Ifugao Province. The case was
filed in connection with an ambuscade, that, as a result of that incident, Governor Gualberto
Lumauig of Ifugao was wounded and his exec. assistant and his driver were killed. Up to this
time the accused in that case have not been arraigned. .

Mondiguing and Dunuan filed a petition to transfer the venue of the case to Baguio City or
Quezon City. They claimed that they could not expect a fair and impartial trial in Lagawe, Ifugao
because the Judge of the CFI of that province is a protege’ of the then Governor and his brother,
former Congressman, and because their witnesses would be afraid to testify for fear of
harassment and reprisals. The petitioners further claimed that their lives and the lives of their
witnesses and lawyers would be in grave danger because of the tensions and antagonisms
spawned by the case and the political rivalry between the Lumauig and Mondiguing factions.
(The accused, George Bayucca was killed on October 28, 1970 and Alipio Mondiguing resigned
as mayor of Banaue and took refuge in Baguio City). .

Respondent presiding Judge Abad disputed the correctness or truth of the grounds on the change
of venue and prayed that the petition be dismissed. He said that, if there would be bias on his
part, he would be biased in favor of the People of the Philippines since the charged was not
“committed personally against” the Governor. However, this statement is not correct since the
governor is one of the victims mentioned in the information.

The fact also, is that, previously, the Court has disqualified Judge Abad from trying the electoral
protests filed against the governor since allegedly the judge was a political leader of the
Governor and was recommended to his present position by the latter.

ISSUE: Whether Mondiguing's plea for a change of venue is justified.

HELD: A change of place of trial in criminal cases should not be granted for whimsical or
flimsy reasons. The interests of the public require that, to secure the best results and effects in the
punishment of crime, it is necessary to prosecute and punish the criminal in the very place, as
near as may be, where he committed his crime. The Supreme Court is invested with the
prerogative of ordering “a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice”
(Sec. 5(4), Art. X of the Constitution). It “possesses inherent power and jurisdiction to decree
that the trial and disposition of a case pending in a Court of First Instance be transferred to
another Court of First Instance within the same district whenever the interest of justice and truth
so demand, and there are serious and weighty reasons to believe that a trial by the court that
originally had jurisdiction over the case would not result in a fair and impartial trial and lead to a
miscarriage of justice.”
# 19 PEOPLE VS TAROY.

FACTS: The public prosecutor charged Alejo Taroy y Tarnate (Taroy) with two counts of rape
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of La Trinidad, Benguet. Des the child on the first
marriage of Mila who is the wife of the accused, testified that: (First) when she was alone in the
house cleaning Taroy entered the house, locked the door, closed the windows, removed his
clothes, and ordered DES to remove hers. When she resisted, Taroy poked a knife at her head
and forced her afterwards not to tell anyone about it, lest MILA and her siblings would suffer
some harm. DES was 10 years old then. (Second) The same happened again a year after. Four
years later Des together with her aunt and Mila went to the NBI to complain.

The RTC found Taroy guilty of two counts of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua finding the testimony of DES credible and worthy of belief. Taroy challenged
the Benguet RTC’s jurisdiction over the crimes charged contending that their residence when the
alleged offenses took place was in Pucsusan Barangay, Baguio City. However, the RTC held that
the residence did not strip the court of its jurisdiction since he waived the the judicial
requirement. CA affirmed RTC’s decision. Taroy seeks his acquittal from this court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet, has jurisdiction to hear and decide the
cases of rape against Taroy.

HELD: Venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases. It can neither be waived nor subjected to
stipulation. The right venue must exist as a matter of law. Thus, for territorial jurisdiction to
attach, the criminal action must be instituted and tried in the proper court of the municipality,
city, or province where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients took
place. The Informations filed with the RTC of La Trinidad state that the crimes were committed
in the victim and the offender’s house in City Limit, Tuding, Municipality of Itogon, Province of
Benguet. This allegation conferred territorial jurisdiction over the subject offenses on the RTC of
La Trinidad, Benguet. The testimonies of MILA and DES as well as the affidavit of arrest point
to this fact. Clearly, Taroy’s uncorroborated assertion that the subject offenses took place in
Baguio City is not entitled to belief. Besides, he admitted during the pre-trial in the case that it
was the RTC of La Trinidad that had jurisdiction to hear the case.13 Taken altogether, that
RTC’s jurisdiction to hear the case is beyond dispute.
CHAP 3 # 6 PIMENTEL VS PIMENTEL

FACTS: Respondent, Maria Chrysantine Pimentel, filed an action for frustrated parricide against
petitioner, Joselito R. Pimentel. The Information for Frustrated Parricide was raffled to RTC
Quezon City. She also filed a petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Section 36 of
the Family Code on the ground of psychological incapacity. Petitioner received summons to
appear before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City on 7 February 2005, for the pre-trial and
trial of the Civil Case. He then filed an urgent motion to suspend the proceedings before the RTC
Quezon City on the ground of the existence of a prejudicial question asserting that the
relationship between the offender and the victim is a key element in parricide, the outcome of
Civil Case would have a bearing in the criminal case filed against him before the RTC Quezon
City. The RTC Quezon City held that the pendency of the case before the RTC Antipolo is not a
prejudicial question that warrants the suspension of the criminal case before it.

The Court of Appeals also denied the petition holding that the issue in the criminal case for
frustrated parricide differs from the issue in the civil action for annulment of marriage. It ruled
that even if the marriage between petitioner and respondent would be declared void, it would be
immaterial to the criminal case because prior to the declaration of nullity, the alleged acts
constituting the crime of frustrated parricide had already been committed. At the time of the
commission of the crime, the marriage is still subsisting.

ISSUE: Whether the resolution of the action for annulment of marriage is a prejudicial question
that warrants the suspension of the criminal case for frustrated parricide against petitioner.

HELD: The petition has no merit. Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure
provides: “Section 7. Elements of Prejudicial Question.—The elements of a prejudicial question
are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the
issue raised in the subsequent criminal action and (b) the resolution of such issue determines
whether or not the criminal action may proceed.”

The rule is clear that the civil action must be instituted first before the filing of the criminal
action. In this case, the Information for Frustrated Parricide was dated 30 August 2004. It was
raffled to RTC Quezon City on 25 October 2004 as per the stamped date of receipt on the
Information. The RTC Quezon City set Criminal Case No. Q-04-130415 for pre-trial and trial on
14 February 2005. Petitioner was served summons in Civil Case No. 04-7392 on 7 February
2005. Respondent’s petition in Civil Case No. 04-7392 was dated 4 November 2004 and was
filed on 5 November 2004. Clearly, the civil case for annulment was filed after the filing of the
criminal case for frustrated parricide. As such, the requirement of Section 7, Rule 111 of the
2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure was not met since the civil action was filed subsequent to the
filing of the criminal action.