MACASAET v PEOPLE
barangay.
FACTS:
An Information charged the accused (columnist, publisher, managing editor,
and editor of “Abante”) with libel, before the QC RTC. It alleged that the
said accused, with the intent of exposing Joselito Magallanes Trinidad aka
Joey Trinidad aka Toto Trinidad to public hatred, dishonor, discredit,
contempt, and ridicule, did then and there write, publish, exhibit, and
circulate and/or cause to be written an article, publicly imputing a crime
upon the person of said Joslito Magallanes Trinidad.
(READ ORIGINAL FOR WHAT HAPPENED IN THE
INFORMATION)
Judge Apolinario Bruselas, Jr., presiding judge of RTC Branch 93 of QC set
the petitioners’ arraignment.
The petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss the libel case because the trial
court did not have jurisdiction over the offense as the Information discloses
that the residence of private respondent was in Marikina, the RTC of QC
did not have jurisdiction over the case pursuant to Article 360 of the RPC
(… action for damages in cases of written defamations… shall be filed
simultaneously or separately with the CFI of the province or city where the
libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended
parties actually resides at the time of the offense).
The public prosecutor argued that the RTC had jurisdiction, because during
the time material to this case, the private respondent was a resident of both
Quezon City and Marikina City, as shown in his Reply-Affidavit during the
preliminary investigation.
The petitioners countered that since both the complaint-affidavit by private
respondent and the information state that private respondent’s residence is
in Marikina, the dismissal of the case is warranted, for the rule is that
jurisdiction is determined solely by the allegations in the
complaint/information. They also attached certifications by Jimmy Ong
(barangay captain in Malaya, QC), which stated that Joselito Trinidad was
not a registered voter there, and Pablito Antonio (barangay capatain in Sto.
Niño, Marikina), which stated that Joselito Trinidad, was a resident of
Karen Street, Sto Niño, Marikina City and a bona fide member of the
The private respondent argued that the QC certification was issued after he
had already moved out of the apartment he was renting in QC and that there
was no showing that a census was conducted among the residents of
barangay Malaya during the time he resided therein. Anent the Marikina
certification, the respondent argued that barangay and city records are not
regularly update to reflect the transfer of residence of their constituents. In
fact, the barangay captain did not personally know the private respondent,
in the first place. He added that since the receipt of the copy of the
petitioners’ Appeal to the DOJ was sent to his QC address, did, in fact, the
he resided in QC.
The OSG argues that the venue was properly laid in this case as private
respondent’s residency in QC during the time material was sufficiently
established.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA committed an error in ruling that the QC RTC had
territorial jurisdiction over the crime charged?
RULING:
Venue is jurisdictional. The place where the crime was done determines not
only the venue of the action, but it is also an essential element of
jurisdiction. For jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases, the
offense should have been committed or any one of its essential elements
took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Territorial
jurisdiction is the territory where the court has jurisdiction to take
cognizance or try the offense allegedly committed. This is determined by
the allegations in the complaint/information. The law, however, is much
more particular in libel cases, as per Article 360 of the RPC.
Agbayani v Sayo stated the following rules: if the offended is a public
official/private person, the action may be filed in the CFI of the
province/city where the libelous article was printed and first published. If
the offended is a private individual, the action may also be filed in the CFI
of the province where he actually resided at the time of the commission of
the offense. If the offended is a public officer whose office is in Manila at
the time of the offense, the action may be filed in the CFI of Manila. If the
offended is a public officer holding office outside of Manila, the action case does not cease. Its only effect is that the appeal is deemed perfected as
may be filed in the CFI of the province/city where he held office at the time to him. According to Justice Florenz Regalado, the trial court loses
of the offense. jurisdiction over the case as of the filing of the last notice of appeal or the
expiration of the period to do so for all parties.
The respondent was a private citizen at the time of the publication of the
alleged libelous article, thus, he could only file his libel suit in the City of
Manila where Abante was first published or in the province/city where he
actually resided at the time of the purported libelous article was printed.

However, the allegations in the complaint/information of this case are

utterly insufficient to vest jurisdiction on the RTC of QC. Although the
information did state “Quezon City” at the beginning, the ACP did not
bother to indicate whether the jurisdiction fo the QC RTC was invoked
either because Abante was printed in that place or private respondent was a
resident there.

Article 360 of the RPC states that either of the aforementioned requisites
should be alleged in the information itself. The absence of both from the
very face of the information renders the information fatally defective. The
ACP’s failure to lay down the basis for the RTC’s jurisdiction denied said
court of the power to take cognizance of the case.

The private respondent and the OSG argues that the supplemental affidavit
submitted during the preliminary investigation cured the defect of the
information, although the Court does not agree. Jurisdiction of a case over a
criminal case is determined by the allegations of the complaint/information.
In cases where a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction is filed, the
general rule is that the facts contained in the complaint/information
should be taken as they are. The exception is that where the Rules of
Court allow the investigation of facts alleged in a motion to quash (the
ground invoked is the the extinction of criminal liability, prescription,
double jeopardy, or insanity of the accused), it is incumbent upon the trial
court to conduct a preliminary trial to determine the merit of the motion
to dismiss. The present case does not fall within any of the recognized
exceptions and that the trial court correctly dismissed this action.

Rule 41, Section 9 of the Rules state that in appeals by notice of appeal,
the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the appeals
filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.
When a party files a notice of appeal, the trial court’s jurisdiction over the