Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1970 > May 1970 Decisions > G.R. No. L-27124 May 29, 1970 - FRANCISCO COLMENARES v. ARTURO P. VILLAR, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-27124. May 29, 1970.]

FRANCISCO COLMENARES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. JUDGE ARTURO P. VILLAR, Municipal Judge of La Castellana, Negros Occidental, and ATTY. OTHELO CABALES, Chief of Police of La Castellana, Negros Occidental, Respondents-Appellees.

Ibrado & Ibrado for Petitioner-Appellant.

Manuel Dizon, Jr. for Respondents-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; COURTS; JURISDICTION, DETERMINED BY ALLEGATIONS OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION. — It must be remembered that jurisdiction of the court over a case is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — Here the complaint filed with the municipal court of La Castellana recited that on 22 Dec. 1966 the accused, Francisco Colmenares, was found in possession of two unlicensed firearms in the municipality of La Castellana. That allegation makes the filing of the case in the La Castellana municipal court proper.

3. ID.; ID.; VENUE; RULE 110, SEC. 14, REVISED RULES COURT. — Under Sec. 14, Rule 110, Revised Rules of Court, criminal actions shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province wherein the offense was committed or any one of the essential ingredients thereof took place.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS AS MALUM PROHIBITUM, EXPLAINED. — That the firearms were confiscated from him in another town than the municipality where the case was instituted does not affect the jurisdiction of the court. For, being malum prohibitum, the crime of illegal possession of firearms is consummated by the very fact of its performance; by the firearms being possessed or held by the accused without proper authorization therefor. The place where said firearms were finally confiscated and taken away from the accused is immaterial; it could not have added anything to the nature of the unlawful act completed and consummated earlier.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ALLEGATIONS OF SITUS OF OFFENSE CHARGED SATISFIED IN INSTANT CASE. — For purposes of the proceeding instituted in the La Castellana municipal court, it is sufficient that, according to the prosecution, the accused was in possession of the unlicensed firearms while he was in that municipality, for in the determination of the correct venue, the vital point is the allegation of the situs of the offense charged in the complaint or information and that is satisfied in this case.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


Appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental (in Civil Case No. 7929) dismissing for lack of merit the petition for certiorari filed therein.

The case arose from the filing in the Municipal Court of La Castellana, Negros Occidental, by the Chief of Police of the same municipality of a complaint against one Francisco Colmenares for illegal possession of firearms (Criminal Case No. 1257), allegedly committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on the 22nd day of December, 1965, at about 1:30 in the afternoon more or less, in the municipality of La Castellana, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused, Francisco Colmenares, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody and control two (2) firearms to wit: one (1) Colt super .38 bearing SN 45975 with magazine loaded with 9 rounds of live ammunition and WTC Austen MK.I No. 70 with magazine loaded with 23 rounds of live ammunitions, without first having obtained proper license therefor.

An Act Contrary to law."cralaw virtua1aw library

Named in the complaint as witnesses were Eduardo Colmenares, also of La Castellana, Negros Occidental, and others.

The accused thereafter filed a motion to quash the complaint 1 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It was claimed that venue was improperly laid, because the firearms mentioned in the complaint were taken from the possession of the accused in the municipality of La Carlota, Negros Occidental, by the La Carlota policemen, and not in La Castellana where the complaint was filed. The municipal court having denied this motion, the accused went to the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental in a petition for certiorari (Civil Case No. 7929), raising the same issue of improper venue. And as prayed for in the petition, a writ of preliminary injunction was issued by said court, restraining the Municipal Judge of La Castellana from proceeding with the trial of Criminal Case No. 1257.

Therein respondents Municipal Judge and Chief of Police of La Castellana, traversing the averments of the petition, contended that although the alleged unlicensed firearms were taken from the custody of the accused by La Carlota policemen such unlawful act of carrying unlicensed firearms started from La Castellana; that the La Carlota policemen intercepted the accused and took the firearms from him only because they were earlier requested, by telephone, by the policemen of La Castellana, then a pursuit of the accused, who was fleeing in a taxicab (Koken No. 25), to assist them in the apprehension of the latter.

On 7 September 1966, the court ordered the dismissal of the petition for lack of merit. The accused moved for reconsideration thereof and, when it was denied, he came to this Court on Appeal, reiterating the argument that since the firearms specified in the complaint were found in and removed from his custody in the municipality of La Carlota, the municipal court of La Castellana has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case for illegal possession of such arms. There is no merit in the appeal.

It must be remembered that the jurisdiction of the court over a case is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information. Here, the complaint filed with the municipal court of La Castellana recited that on 22 December 1966 the accused, Francisco Colmenares, was found in possession of two unlicensed firearms in the municipality of La Castellana. That allegation makes the filing of the case in the La Castellana municipal court proper. Under the Rules, criminal actions shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province wherein the offense was committed or any one of the essential ingredients thereof took place.’ 2 That the firearms were confiscated from him by the La Carlota policemen within the territorial boundaries of that municipality would not sustain the motion for quashal of the complaint in this case nor affect the merits thereof. It is not altogether improbable that the offense of unlawful possession of firearms could have been committed in La Castellana, as stated in the complaint, and also in La Carlota, as manifested by the appellant. For, being malum prohibitum the crime is consummated by the very fact of its performance; by the firearms being possessed or held by the accused without proper authorization therefor. The place where the said firearms were finally confiscated and taken away from the accused is immaterial; it could not have added anything to the nature of the unlawful act completed and consummated earlier. 3 Thus, for purposes of the proceeding instituted in the La Castellana municipal court, it is sufficient that, according to the prosecution, the accused was in possession of the unlicensed firearms while he was in La Castellana. To determine the correct venue, the vital point is the allegation of the situs of the offense charged in the complaint or information, 4 and that is satisfied in this case.

WHEREFORE, finding no error in the order appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Castro, J., is on leave.

Endnotes:



1. This motion must have been filed after a warrant for the arrest of the accused was issued, although nothing to this effect appears from the papers submitted to this Court. There is record that the Municipal Judge had fixed the bail at P5,000.00 (p. 9, CFI record), but there is no indication that the accused was arrested and detained, or else released on bail.

2. Section 14, Revised Rule 110.

3. Duran v. Tan, 85 Phil. 476.

4. Mediante v. Ortiz, L-19425, 27 April 1967, 19 SCRA 832.




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-1970 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-29155 May 13, 1970 - UNIVERSAL FOOD CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24995 May 27, 1970 - REPUBLIC COMMODITIES CORPORATION v. SALUSTIANO OCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27344 May 28, 1970 - MAXIMA B. ARCOS, ET AL. v. JULIAN ARDALES

  • G.R. No. L-27704 May 28, 1970 - ABELARDO SUBIDO v. RAPAEL MISON, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-27832 May 28, 1970 - CARLOS V. MATUTE v. JOSE S. MATUTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27610 May 28, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO EMPEÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22470 May 28, 1970 - SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL v. BINALBAGAN-ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-24456 May 28, 1970 - LINO VICTORINO, ET AL. v. HONORIA LAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25906 May 28, 1970 - PEDRO D. DIOQUINO v. FEDERICO LAUREANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26931 May 28, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORADOR S. PINGOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27022 May 28, 1970 - RADIOWEALTH TRADING CORPORATION v. AIDA L. ABASTILLAS

  • G.R. No. L-25147 May 29, 1970 - ANGELINA MAQUILING v. MONSERRAT UMADHAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25326 May 29, 1970 - IGMIDIO HIDALGO, ET AL. v. POLICARPIO HIDALGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21576 May 29, 1970 - MUNICIPALITY OF PAETE v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-22439 May 29, 1970 - ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23560 May 29, 1970 - MARIA CONSUELO IGNACIO v. PASTOR MANALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24592 May 29, 1970 - NORTHWEST AIRLINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24781 May 29, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS FERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26632 May 29, 1970 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26970 May 29, 1970 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE BORROMEO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-26890-92 May 29, 1970 - NWSA CONSOLIDATED UNIONS v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27124 May 29, 1970 - FRANCISCO COLMENARES v. ARTURO P. VILLAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27493 May 29, 1970 - SAN BEDA COLLEGE v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-27830 May 29, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HONG DIN CHU

  • G.R. No. L-29116 May 29, 1970 - JUAN B. ESPE v. CENTRAL COOPERATIVE EXCHANGE, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-29138 May 29, 1970 - ELENA CONTRERAS v. CESAR J. MACARAIG

  • G.R. No. L-29306 May 29, 1970 - CONSUELO S. GONZALES-PRECILLA v. JAIME ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30369 May 29, 1970 - SATURNINO A. TANHUECO v. ANDRES AGUILAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26901 May 29, 1970 - SOUTH SEA SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC., ET AL. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21727 May 29, 1970 - CRISPINA SALAZAR v. GUILLERMO GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21938-39 May 29, 1970 - VICENTE URIARTE v. CFI OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26600 May 29, 1970 - EMILIANO PIELAGO, ET AL. v. RECAREDO ECHAVEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26629 May 29, 1970 - NGO DY v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-27816 May 29, 1970 - FEDERICO AGUILAR v. HONORATO B. MASAKAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-28014-15 May 29, 1970 - MARCELO LANDINGIN, ET AL. v. PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19835 May 29, 1970 - WILFREDO LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20604 May 29, 1970 - EDUARDO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21644 May 29, 1970 - WENCESLAO PASCUAL v. PILAR BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25352 May 29, 1970 - JOSE MARIA SALVADOR, ET AL. v. ROSENDO FRIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25803 May 29, 1970 - LUZ PICAR, ET AL. v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-26838 May 29, 1970 - TOMAS BESA v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27126 May 29, 1970 - LOU C. LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-27585 May 29, 1970 - PROGRESSIVE LABOR ASSOCIATION v. ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28074 May 29, 1970 - NORTHERN MOTORS, INC. v. CASIANO SAPINOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29132 May 29, 1970 - JOSE YAP JOAQUIN, ET AL. v. EMILIO L. GALANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31135 May 29, 1970 - DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, ET AL. v. JOSE A. ALIGAEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31558 May 29, 1970 - RASID LUCMAN v. MACACUNA DIMAPURO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26681 May 29, 1970 - JOSE CALACDAY, ET AL. v. MARTINIANO P. VIVO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27562 May 29, 1970 - ROMULO A. YARCIA v. CITY OF BAGUIO