Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > May 1965 Decisions > G.R. No. L-20430 May 20, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUVIGES SAN ANTONIO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-20430. May 20, 1965.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EDUVIGES SAN ANTONIO, Defendant-Appellee.

Solicitor General, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Sancho Inocencio, for Defendant-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; JURISDICTION OF COURT DETERMINED BY ALLEGATIONS IN INFORMATION. — What determines the jurisdiction and competence of a court is that which is alleged in the information. For purposes of determining jurisdiction in a estafa case the question of where the accused allegedly received the money has to be resolved by the allegations in the information.

2. ID.; ID.; ALLEGATIONS OF INFORMATION IN ESTAFA NOT SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT OR RECEIPT DETERMINES COURT’S JURISDICTION. — In a estafa case, the allegations in the information specifying a particular municipality as the place where the accused received the money malversed determines the jurisdiction of the court, and not the receipt attached to the supporting affidavit of complainant mentioning another place, especially where said affidavit explains that said receipt was executed merely to confirm the delivery of the money previously made in the municipality alleged in the information.

3. ID.; ID.; PLACE OF UNDERTAKING IN ESTAFA MAY DETERMINE JURISDICTION OF COURT. — In estafa, even if the money was delivered to the accused in another place outside the jurisdiction of the court a quo, but the express undertaking of the accused, stated in the information, was to deliver the commodity purchased therewith or return the money in a place within the jurisdiction of said court, the alleged failure to comply with said undertaking, an element of estafa, takes place within the jurisdiction of said court.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.P., J.:


The prosecution has appealed from an order of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan quashing, on defendant’s motion, an information for estafa alleging:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the month of March, 1961, in the municipality of Obando, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused Eduviges San Antonio, by means of false pretenses and fraudulent manifestations, received from the complaining witness Veronica M. de Leon the sum of P2,620.00 for the purpose of buying rice and with the express obligation of delivering the purchased rice on or before May 20, 1961, or to return to the said Veronica M. de Leon the said sum of P2,620.00 if no rice is purchased, but the said accused, once in possession of the said amount, and far from complying with her aforesaid obligation, and in spite of repeated demands to return the said sum of P2,620.00, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with grave abuse of confidence and with deceit, misappropriate, misapply and convert to her personal use and benefit the said sum of P2,620.00, belonging to the said Veronica M. de Leon, to the damage and prejudice of the latter in the sum of P2,620.00."cralaw virtua1aw library

Appellant contends that the court a quo "erred in holding that the transaction subject of the information has been consummated in the City of Manila and in granting the motion to quash on this ground."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the record it is shown that on June 14, 1961, Veronica M. de Leon filed a complaint for estafa in the Justice of the Peace Court of Obando, Bulacan, against Eduviges San Antonio, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the month of March, 1961, in the Municipality of Obando, Province of Bulacan, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the said accused, having received from Veronica M. de Leon, offended party herein, the sum of TWO THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWENTY PESOS (P2,620.00) for the purpose of buying for the latter rice, with the expressly obligation of delivering said rice or the money if she be not able to buy any on or before May 20, 1961, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate, misapply and convert the said sum of P2,620.00 to her own use and benefit and to the damages and prejudice of the undersigned Veronica M. de Leon in the sum of P2,620.00." (sic)

Accompanying the complaint was an affidavit of the complainant and a receipt signed by the accused.

The affidavit, dated June 14, 1961, stated that complainant had known the accused for a long time and that they are residents of Barrio Catanghalan, Obando, Bulacan; that complainant used to sell and distribute rice in their barrio; that the accused, knowing complainant’s need of rice for distribution, offered to buy rice for her; that in March of 1961 complainant delivered to the accused P2,620.00 for said purpose in her residence at Obando, Bulacan, without a receipt; that in May of 1961 complainant asked the accused for al receipt with a statement of her undertaking, and the latter executed the receipt; that the accused was to deliver the rice on or before May 20, 1961 or return the money should she not be able to buy any; and that on May 20, 1961, complainant went to see the accused at her residence in Manila, demanding the delivery of the rice or the return of the money, but the accused refused to do so.

The receipt, attached to the affidavit as integral part thereof, is quoted hereunder:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"RECIBO

"Tinangap ko kay Gng. VIRGINIA DE LEON ng Obando, Bulacan ang halagang ISANG LIBO ISANG DAAN PISO (P1,100.00), kuartang Filipino, na ang nasabing halaga ay aking ipamili ng bigas na ihuhulog ko kay Gng. VIRGINIA DE LEON at kung hindi ako makabili ng bigas ang nasabing halaga ay aking isasauli nang walang tubo o patong sa kanya sa 20 ng Mayo, 1961 sa kanyang tahanan sa Obando, Bulacan.

"Maynila, Mayo 3, 1961.

(Sgd.) EDUVIGES SAN ANTONIO

"Sa harap nila:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(Sgd.) FLORA DE LEON

(Sgd.) CONSOLACION DAVID"

After the accused waived the second stage of preliminary investigation, the records were transmitted to the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, where, on February 6, 1962, the corresponding information, aforequoted, was filed.

On March 16, 1962, before arraignment, defense counsel moved to quash the information on the ground that, per receipt signed in Manila, the alleged crime was committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. Said motion was denied on March 26, 1962, for the reason that defendant presented no sufficient evidence to prove his contention and that in complainant’s affidavit it is stated that the money was delivered to the accused in Obando, Bulacan.

Subsequently, however, a second motion to quash was filed, on September 11, 1962, upon the same ground. The court a quo, on the same day, granted the motion and dismissed the case with costs de oficio. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was thereafter denied.

It is a fundamental principle of remedial law that what determines the jurisdiction and competence of a court is that which is alleged in the information (U.S. v. Mallari, 24 Phil. 366; Arches v. Bellasillo, 81 Phil. 190).

For purposes of determining jurisdiction in the present case, therefore, the question of where the accused allegedly received the money has to be resolved by the allegations in the information. It is categorically stated therein that "on or about the month of March 1961, in the municipality of Obando, province of Bulacan . . . the said accused Eduviges San Antonio, by means of false pretenses and fraudulent manifestations, received from the complaining witness Veronica M. De Leon the sum of P2,620.00." (Emphasis supplied.) Such element of estafa accordingly took place in Bulacan, as far as the motion to quash is concerned, so that the offense alleged is within the court a quo’s jurisdiction.

Furthermore, as stated, the defense relied on the receipt for its contention that the money was received in Manila. The affidavit of the complainant, however, to which the receipt is attached and made an integral part, states that said receipt was executed merely to confirm the delivery of the money previously made in Bulacan.

Assuming, even, that the money was delivered to the accused in Manila, the express undertaking of the accused, stated in the information as well as in the receipt, was to deliver the rice purchased therewith, or return the money, in Obando, Bulacan. The alleged failure of the accused to comply with said undertaking — an element of estafa — is a failure to deliver the palay or return the money in Obando, Bulacan, that is, within the court a quo’s jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, the order quashing the information is hereby set aside, and the case remanded for further proceedings, without costs. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1965 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-16784 May 19, 1965 - IN RE: LIANE C. GOMEZ v. AUGUSTO G. SYJUCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19997 May 19, 1965 - VISAYAN BICYCLE MANUFACTURING CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20139 May 19, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEGUNDO MARQUEZ Y CASTRO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20282 May 19, 1965 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. EUSEBIO DAPLAS

  • G.R. No. L-20791 May 19, 1965 - MANUEL F. AQUINO, ET AL v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20815 May 19, 1965 - SANTIAGO MANZANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19537 May 20, 1965 - LINO GUTIERREZ, ET AL v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-18766 May 20, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. L-19537 May 20, 1965 - LINO GUTIERREZ, ET AL. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-19727 May 20, 1965 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PHOENIX ASSURANCE CO., LTD.

  • G.R. No. L-20430 May 20, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUVIGES SAN ANTONIO

  • A.C. No. 611 May 25, 1965 - BONIFACIO GARCIA, ET AL v. ATTY. ABELARDO MILLA

  • G.R. No. L-20448 May 25, 1965 - NAPOLEON MAGALIT, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20618 May 25, 1965 - HERMENEGILDO R. ROSALES v. FLAVIANO YENKO

  • G.R. No. L-14532 & L-14533 May 26, 1965 - JOSE LEON GONZALES v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13469 May 27, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO EGUAL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15706 May 27, 1965 - ILDEFONSO D. YAP, ET AL v. MANUEL L. CARREON

  • G.R. No. L-18804 May 27, 1965 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. WESTERN PACIFIC CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-19450 May 27, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMPLICIO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-21997 May 27, 1965 - JOSE C. ZULUETA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. L-13816 May 31, 1965 - SEVERO ROMERO, ET AL. v. ISABELO DE LOS REYES, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-17132 May 31, 1965 - JUAN BENEMERITO, ET AL v. PETRONILA COSTANILLA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17320 May 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO PAZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17712 May 31, 1965 - BASILIO UNSAY, ET AL v. CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18038 May 31, 1965 - ROSA GUSTILO v. AUGUSTO GUSTILO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18348 May 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO CALACALA

  • G.R. No. L-18443 May 31, 1965 - ENRIQUE SISON, ET AL v. JUAN PAJO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18452 May 31, 1965 - AUGUSTO COSIO, ET AL v. CHERIE PALILEO

  • G.R. No. L-18497 May 31, 1965 - DAGUPAN TRADING COMPANY v. RUSTICO MACAM

  • G.R. No. L-19346 May 31, 1965 - SOLEDAD L. LACSON, ET AL. v. ABELARDO G. DIAZ

  • G.R. No. L-19587 May 31, 1965 - RAFAEL JALOTJOT v. MARINDUQUE IRON MINES AGENTS, INC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19646 May 31, 1965 - IN RE: ESPIRITU NG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19659 May 31, 1965 - DR. POLICARPIO C. ALISOSO v. TARCELA LASTIMOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19967 May 31, 1965 - ARSENIO REYES v. SINAI C. HAMADA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20202 May 31, 1965 - CIRIACO HERNANDEZ v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20227 May 31, 1965 - IN RE: GO KEM LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20275-79 May 31, 1965 - VIRGINIA B. UICHANCO, ET AL v. FIDEL GUTIERREZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20394 May 31, 1965 - STEPHEN W. MARTIN v. CELESTINO GOMEZ

  • G.R. No. L-20472 May 31, 1965 - MARIO F. OUANO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20577 May 31, 1965 - VISAYAN PACKING CORP. v. REPARATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-20617 May 31, 1965 - BRUNO GARCIA v. DALMACIO ANAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20737 May 31, 1965 - ROQUE ESCAÑO v. RODRIGO C. LIM

  • G.R. No. L-20792 May 31, 1965 - ELIZALDE & CO., INC. v. ALLIED WORKERS ASSO. OF THE PHIL., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20950 May 31, 1965 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. AYALA Y CIA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21235 May 31, 1965 - RODOLFO TIRONA v. M. CUDIAMAT

  • G.R. No. L-21653 May 31, 1965 - VICENTE DE LARA, JR., ET AL v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21764 May 31, 1965 - VICENTE CABILING, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO PABULAAN, ET AL.