Venue / Jurisdiction

1. Mario, a resident of Quezon City, sued for libel the editor, publisher and columnist of Ang Bagong
Pilipino, a newspaper of general circulation, with principal office at Binondo, Manila. He claimed that because his
reputation had been badly besmirched by the offensive article he suffered damages estimated at 1 Million. The case
was filed before the Regional Court of Quezon City.
The accused moved to quash the Information on the ground that the RTC had no jurisdiction to try the case
considering that under Sec.2 of R.A. 7691 Metropolitan Trial Courts exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all
offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years (of which libel is one) irrespective of the amount
of fine, accessory or other penalties or civil liability arising from the offense. The accused also claimed that the
offensive article was printed and first publish in Manila so that he case should have been filed with the Metropolitan
Trail Court of Manila.
Decide. Discuss fully. (1995, #6)

Answer:
The motion to quash should be granted on two grounds, namely:
1. Since the libelous article was printed and first published in Manila, the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City has no jurisdiction over the offense.
2. Since the penalty provided by law for libel does exceed six (6) years, the MeTC of Manila has
exclusive jurisdiction.

Alternative Answer:
Art. 360, RPC, as amended, expressly vests the RTC with jurisdiction over libel case. This special
provision should prevail over R.A. 7691.

2. Where the proper venue for the filing of an information in the following cases?
a) The theft of a car in Pasig City which was brought to Obando, Bulacan where it was cannibalized.

Answer:
The proper venue is in Pasig City where the theft of the car was committed, not in Obando where
it was cannibalized. Theft is not a continuing offense.

b) The theft by X, a bill collector of ABC Company, with main offices in Makati City, of his collections from
customers in Tagaytay City. In the contract of employment, X was detailed to the Calamba branch office, Laguna,
where he was to turn in his collections.

Answer:
If the crime charged is theft, the venue is in Calamba where he did not turn in his collections.
If the crime of X is estafa, the essential ingredients of the offense, the essential ingredients of the
offense took place in Tagaytay City where he received his collections, in Calamba where he should have
turned in his collections, and in Makati City where the ABC Company was based. The information may
therefore be filed in Tagaytay City or Calamba or Makati which have concurrent territorial jurisdiction.

c) The malversation of public funds by a Philippine consul detailed in the Philippine embassy in
London(1997, #18)

Answer:
The proper court is the Sandiganbayan which has jurisdiction over crimes committed by a consul
or higher official in the diplomatic service. The Sandiganbayan is a national court. It has only one venue
at present, which is in Metro Manila, until R. A. No. 7975, providing for two other branches in Cebu and
in Cagayan de Oro, is implemented.

In a murder case before a RTC the defendant sought a change of venue on the ground that
the people of the community in the place of trial are so inflamed against him that he and his
witnesses run the risk of being mobbed while going to and from the court.
Assuming that the accused’s observation about the temper of the community and
the risk of getting mobbed were correct, but not forgetting that the alleged murder was
committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court where the information has been
filed, would you grant the change of venue if you were the RTC judge handling the case?
Explain.(1984, #14)
Answer:
While the rule is that the criminal action should be filed and prosecuted in the proper
court of the place where the crime was committed, the Constitution specifically provides
that a change of venue or place of trial may be ordered to avoid miscarriage of justice. The
situation in the problem appears to be one where a change of the place of the criminal trial
is necessary to avoid miscarriage of justice. However, the power to order a change of venue
of the trial is vested in the SC by the Constitution. Hence, I would not grant the motion for
change of venue, but I would direct that the motion should be filed with the SC.
Another Answer:
I would not grant the change of venue inasmuch as the offense was committed within
the territorial jurisdiction of my courts. Under the Constitution, only the Supreme Court has
the power to order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.