GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Bonifacio et. al vs. RTC of Makati, May/5/2010 (Pacific Plans/Yuchengco Libel

Case)
FACTS: Petitioner Wonina Bonifacio, and others moved for the reversal of the
issuances of the RTC of Makati which denied the quashal of the amended
information inducting them of libel.
Petitioners were accused of libel, by posting libelous articles on the internet.
ISSUE: Is the RTC of Makati vested with the jurisdiction of the libel case?
RULING: The SC granted the petition. For the Court to hold that the
Amended Information sufficiently vested jurisdiction in the courts of Makati
simply because the defamatory article was accessed therein would open the
floodgates to the libel suit being filed in all other locations where the
pepcoalition website is likewise accessed or capable of being accessed.
If the circumstances as to where the libel was printed and first published are
used by the offended party as basis for the venue in the criminal action, the
Information must allege with particularity where the defamatory article was
printed and first published, as evidenced or supported by, for instance, the
address of their editorial or business offices in the case of newspapers,
magazines or serial publications. This pre-condition becomes necessary in
order to forestall any inclination to harass.
The same measure cannot be reasonably expected when it pertains to
defamatory material appearing on a website on the internet as there would
be no way of determining the situs of its printing and first publication. To
credit Gimenezs premise of equating his first access to the defamatory
article on petitioners website in Makati with "printing and first publication"
would spawn the very ills that the amendment to Article 360 of the RPC
sought to discourage and prevent. It hardly requires much imagination to see
the chaos that would ensue in situations where the websites author or
writer, a blogger or anyone who posts messages therein could be sued for
libel anywhere in the Philippines that the private complainant may have
allegedly accessed the offending website.

FUKUZUME vs PEOPLE
FACTS: Fukuzume was accused of committing estafa.
filed in the RTC of Makati.

The case was

ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC of Makati has jurisdiction.

RULING: From the foregoing, it is evident that the prosecution failed to
prove that Fukuzume committed the crime of estafa in Makati or that any of
the essential ingredients of the offense took place in the said city. Hence, the
judgment of the trial court convicting Fukuzume of the crime of estafa should
be set aside for want of jurisdiction, without prejudice, however, to the filing
of appropriate charges with the court of competent jurisdiction.
It is noted that it was only in his petition with the CA that Fukuzume
raised the issue of the trial courts jurisdiction over the offense charged.
Nonetheless, the rule is settled that an objection based on the ground that
the court lacks jurisdiction over the offense charged may be raised or
considered motu propio by the court at any stage of the proceedings or on
appeal. Moreover, jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal case
cannot be conferred upon the court by the accused, by express waiver or
otherwise, since such jurisdiction is conferred by the sovereign authority
which organized the court, and is given only by law in the manner and form
prescribed by law. While an exception to this rule was recognized by this
Court beginning with the landmark case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, wherein
the defense of lack of jurisdiction by the court which rendered the
questioned ruling was considered to be barred by laches, we find that the
factual circumstances involved in said case, a civil case, which justified the
departure from the general rule are not present in the instant criminal case.
Miranda vs. Tuliao, G.R. # 158763, March 31, 2006
Facts: On Mar. 1996, 2 burnt cadavers were discovered in Ramon, Isabela
which were later identified as the bodies of Vicente Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao,
son of the private respondent Virgilio Tulio who is now under the witness
protection program.
2 informations for murder were filed against the 5 police officer
including SPO2 Maderal in RTC of Santiago City. The venue was later

transferred to Manila. RTC Manila convicted all the accused and sentenced
them 2 counts of reclusion perpetua except SPO2 Maderal who was yet to be
arraigned at that time, being at large. Upon automatic review, the SC
acquitted the four accused on the ground of reasonable doubt.
In Sept. 1999, Maderal was arrested. He executed a sworn confession
and identified the herein petitioner Miranda and 4 others responsible for the
death of the victims. Respondent Tuliao then filed a criminal complaint for
murder against the petitioners. Acting Presiding Judge Tumalian issued
warrant of arrest against the petitioners and SPO2 Maderal.
Petitioners filed an urgent motion to complete preliminary
investigation, to reinvestigate, and to recall or quash the warrant of arrest. In
the hearing of the urgent motion, Judge Tumalian noted the absence of
petitioners and issued a Joint order denying the said urgent motion on the
ground that since the court did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons,
the motion cannot be properly heard by the court. The petitioners appealed
the resolution of the Public prosecutor to the DOJ.
The new Presiding Judge named Judge Anghad took over the case and
issued a Joint Order reversing the Joint Order of Judge Tumalian. He also
ordered the cancellation of the warrant of arrest. Respondent Tulia filed a
petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition with a prayer for TRO
seeking to enjoin Judge Anghad from further proceeding of the case and
seeking to nullify the Joint Orders of the said Judge. The SC issued a
resolution granting the prayer. Notwithstanding the said resolution, Judge
Anghad issued a Joint Order dismissing the information against the petition.
Respondent Tuliao filed a motion to cite Judge Anghad in contempt. The
SC referred the said motion to the CA. The CA rendered the assailed decision
granting the petition and ordering the reinstatement of the criminal cases in
the RTC of Santiago City as well as the issuance of warrant of arrest. Hence,
this petition.
Issue: Whether or not an accused cannot seek any judicial relief if he does
not submit his person to the jurisdiction of the court
Held: Petition is dismissed and cost against the petitioners.
It has been held that an accused cannot seek judicial relief is he does
not submit his person to the jurisdiction of the court. Jurisdiction over the
accused can be acquired either through compulsory process, such as warrant
of arrest or through his voluntary appearance, such as when he surrender to
the police or to the court. It is only when the court has already acquired
jurisdiction over his person that an accused may invoke the processes of the
court. Since, petitioner were not arrested or otherwise deprived of their
liberty, they cannot seek judicial relief.

Yalong vs. People, 704 SCRA 195

FACTS: Yalong, knowing that she does not have funds with the Export and
Industry Bank, issued to Major Lucila Ylagan a check amounting Php
450,000.00. But when said check was presented for full payment with the
drawee bank, the same was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Despite
the situation and demends made to make her make a good check, the
accused failed and refused to do so.
Upon arraignment, Yalong pleaded not guilty to the offense charged(BP22).
Hence, pre-trial was set, and thereafter trial ensued.
MTC found all the elements of the crime charged to have been established
and did not give credence to Yalongs defense that she did not own the
checking account and that she was not the one who issued the subject
check. MTC also observed that Yalong failed to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that she has completely paid the loan and thus, such
defense must likewise fail.

Yalong filed a supplemental Motion for Reconsideration and Recall the

warrant of Arrest which the MTCC treated as an original motion for
reconsideration. Saide motion was denied.
Consequently, Yalonh filed a Notice of Appeal which was denied considering
that the judgement against her was promulgated in absentia on account of
her unjustified absence.
Dissatisfied, Yalong Filed a Petition for Relief from Order and Denial of Appeal
which was dismissed on the ground that Yalong had lost the remedies
available to her under the law when she: (a) Failed to appear without
justifiable reason; (b) did not surrender within 15 days from the date of such
promulgation; (c) did not file a motion for leave of court to avail of the
remedies under the law; and (d) remained at large.
RTC Denied Yalongs certiorari petition, finding the MTCCs decision valid.
CA dismissed the subject petition for review on the ground that the order of
the RTC was issued in the exercise of its original jurisdiction where a NOTICE
of APPEAL and not a petition for review is the proper remedy. Thereafter, CA
also denied Yalongs motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE: WON the CA properly dismissed the subject petition for review on the
ground of improper appeal.
RULING: The petition is bereft of merit.
While the Rules of Court (Rules) do not specifically state that the
inappropriate filing of a petition for review instead of a required notice of
appeal is dismissible (unlike its converse, i.e., the filing of a notice of appeal
when what is required is the filing of a petition for review), Section 2(a),
Rule 41 of the Rules nonetheless provides that appeals to the CA in cases
decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken
by filing a notice of appeal with the latter court. The said provision reads:
SEC. 2. Modes of appeal.
(a) Ordinary appeal. The appeal to the Court of Appeals in
cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the
court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and
serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall
be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or
separate appeals where the law or these Rules so require. In such cases,
the record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner. (Emphasis
and underscoring supplied)
In the case at bar, records reveal that Yalong filed a petition for
certiorari with the RTC and that the latter court rendered a Resolution dated
April 2, 2008 dismissing the same. It is fundamental that a petition for
certiorari is an original action and, as such, it cannot be again said that the
RTC took cognizance of and resolved the aforesaid petition in the exercise
of its original jurisdiction. Hence, based on the above-cited rule, Yalong
should have filed a notice of appeal with the RTC instead of a petition for
review with the CA. As a consequence of Yalongs failure to file a notice of
appeal with the RTC within the proper reglementary period, the RTC
Decision had attained finality which thereby bars Yalong from further
contesting the same.
In this relation, it must be pointed out that Yalongs contention that a
petition for review may be treated as a notice of appeal since the contents of
the former already include the required contents of the latter cannot be
given
credence since these modes of appeal clearly remain distinct procedures
which cannot, absent any compelling reason therefor, be loosely
interchanged with one another. For one, a notice of appeal is filed with the
regional trial court that rendered the assailed decision, judgment or final
order, while a petition for review is filed with the CA. Also, a notice of

appeal is required when the RTC issues a decision, judgment or final order
in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, while a petition for review is
required when such issuance was in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
Thus, owing to these differences, Yalongs filing of the subject petition for
review cannot be simply accorded the same effect as the filing of a notice of
appeal.