Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1975 > August 1975 Decisions > G.R. No. L-27410 August 28, 1975 - DINA TUZON v. CESAR C. CRUZ:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-27410. August 28, 1975.]

DINA TUZON, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE CESAR C. CRUZ, Judge of the Municipal Court of Mandaluyong, Rizal and BENJAMIN FERNANDEZ, Respondents.

Antonio T . Lacdan for Petitioner.

Cesar C . Cruz in his own behalf.

SYNOPSIS


Respondent, Judge of the Municipal Court of Mandaluyong, Rizal conducted the preliminary investigation of the complaint for estafa filed by Lyric Piano Center Co. against petitioner involving the sum of P1,900.00. The complaint and the supporting affidavit, which were sworn to before respondent judge, alleged that the deceitful manipulation was perpetrated in Quezon City while the payment of the consideration was made in Mandaluyong, Rizal. The complaint cited the respondent judge as a witness.

Petitioner moved to quash the complaint on the grounds that: (1) the municipal court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the case; and (2) respondent judge was cited as one of the witnesses to the case. Respondent Judge denied the motion; hence, petitioner instituted this petition for certiorari and prohibition to annul the aforesaid order of denial.

The Supreme Court held that municipal courts have jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation of cases committed within their territorial jurisdiction without regard to the limits of punishment; denied the petition and since the case appears to be a transitory of continuing offense, it may be filed in any jurisdiction where the offense was in fact committed. However, considering that the respondent judge was cited as one of the witnesses in the case, a new preliminary investigation to be conducted by another judge was ordered.


SYLLABUS


1. COURTS; JURISDICTION; MUNICIPAL COURT’S AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION. — Section 2, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, and Section 87, Judiciary Act, authorize municipal judges to conduct preliminary investigation for any offense cognizable by the Courts of First Instance alleged to have been committed within their respective municipalities without regard to the limits of punishments.

2. ID.; ID.; ESTAFA; JURISDICTION OF COURTS IN ESTAFA CASES. — Under Article 315 (3rd), Revised Penal Code, an estafa case involving the amount of P1,900.00 is punishable with arresto mayor maximum to prision correctional minimum of four (4) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four, (4) months. It is within the original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. Under section 87(b)(3), Judiciary Law, a municipal or city court has jurisdiction over estafa case where the amount involved does not exceed two hundred pesos.

3. ID.; ID.; COMPLAINTS; ALLEGATION OF COMPLAINT DETERMINES JURISDICTION. — To determine whether the offenses was committed within the court’s territorial jurisdiction the allegations of the complaint or information are controlling.

4. ID.; ID.; TRANSITORY OFFENSES; CASE CAN BE FILED IN ANY COURT WHERE OFFENSE OR ANY INGREDIENT THEREOF TOOK PLACE. — Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides that in all criminal prosecutions the action 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. Following this rule, the circumstance that the deceitful manipulations or false pretenses employed by the accused have been perpetrated in Quezon City does not preclude the institution of the criminal action in Madaluyong City where the damage was consummated. Deceit and damage are the basic elements of estafa.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; COURT FIRST ACQUIRING JURISDICTION WILL EXCLUDE OTHERS. — The theory is that a person charged with transitory offense may be tried in any jurisdiction where the offense is in part committed. Transitory or continuing offenses in which some acts material and essential to the crime and requisite to its consummation occur in one province and some in another, the court of either province has jurisdiction to try the case, it being understood that the first court taking cognizance of the case will exclude the others.

6. CERTIORARI; MOTION TO QUASH; GENERALLY CERTIORARI DOES NOT LIE TO REVIEW ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH; EXCEPTION. — Generally, certiorari, prohibition or mandamus do not lie to review an order denying the motion to quash. However, petitioner’s contention in her motion to quash that respondent judge should have inhibited himself from investigating the case because he is listed as a witness in the complaint is tenable, since respondent could not have displayed the cold neutrality of a judge.


D E C I S I O N


AQUINO, J.:


Dina Tuzon filed these special civil actions of certiorari and prohibition in order to annul the order of the municipal court of Mandaluyong, Rizal, denying her motion to quash the complaint for estafa against her in Criminal Case No. 17393. The complaint is quoted below:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The undersigned accuses DINA TUZON and FAUSTINO AGUILAR of the crime of ESTAFA, committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about 4:00 PM of October 6, 1966, in the Municipality of Mandaluyong, Province of Rizal and within the jurisdiction of this Hon. Court, the said accused confederating and aiding one another and with to defraud (sic), did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud LYRIC PIANO CENTER COMPANY, INC. in the amount of ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED PESOS (P1,900.00) by then and there falsely pretending to be the representative or authorized agent of one Carlos Rivera and executed a fictious (sic) contract with the said company to the damage and prejudice of the same, in the aforementioned amount.

"Contrary to law Oct. 14, 1966.

"Mand., Rizal

(Sgd.) BENJAMIN FERNANDEZ

Representative of Lyric

Piano Center Co.

Complainant

"SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 14 day of October, 1966 in the Municipality of Mandaluyong, Province of Rizal, Philippines.

(Sgd.) CESAR C. CRUZ

Judge

"Witnesses:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Benjamin Fernandez, 1509 Kundiman St., Samp. Mla.

2. Cesar Cruz (Judge), c/o Mand. Mun. Court.

3. Carlos Rivera, 2234 Dimasalang St., Mla.

4. And others."cralaw virtua1aw library

In complainant’s affidavit, supporting the complaint, which like the complaint was sworn to before respondent Cesar C. Cruz, the municipal judge of Mandaluyong, it was alleged that while the deceit was perpetrated at 184 Dr. Alejos Street, Quezon City, the payment of the consideration to the accused (which payment constituted the damage) was consummated at Mandaluyong. The pertinent portion of the affidavit is quoted below:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"T Saan at kailan nangyari ang sinasabi mong panlolokong ito nila Dina Tuzon at Faustino Aguilar sa Lyric Piano Center Co., Inc.?

"S Sa No. 184 Dr. Alejos St. La Loma, Quezon City ngunit ang bayaran ay naganap sa Mandaluyong, Rizal at ang halaga na binayaran ng Lyric Piano Center Co., Inc. ay P1,900.00 na tinanggap ni Dina Tuzon ng mga ika 4:00 n.h. (sic) noong ika 6 ng Octubre, 1966.

"T. Saan lugar dito sa Mandaluyong, Rizal na sinasabi mo na naganap ang bayaran?

"S Sa opisina ni Judge Cesar C. Cruz ng Mandaluyong."cralaw virtua1aw library

Judge Cruz after conducting a preliminary examination of the case issued a warrant of arrest. Dina Tuzon was arrested and posted bail for her release. Later, she filed a motion to quash the complaint on the ground that the estafa was committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Mandaluyong municipal court. To that motion, she annexed (1) a photostatic copy of a document known as "Transfer of Rights" signed by her at Quezon City but sworn to at Mandaluyong before Judge Cruz himself; (2) illegible photostatic copies of two vouchers of Lyric Piano Center Co., Inc. showing that she received P1,600 from that company, and (3) a photostat of a supposed preliminary agreement over the "telephone rights" allegedly executed in Quezon City. The other accused, Faustino Aguilar, did not file a motion to quash. The record does not show whether he has been arrested.

Judge Cruz denied the motion to quash as well as the motion for the reconsideration of the denial order.

The issue is whether the venue of the case was properly laid in Mandaluyong. It is evident that the case was filed in the Mandaluyong municipal court only for purposes of preliminary investigation. Municipal judges may conduct a preliminary investigation for any offense alleged to have been committed within their respective municipalities which are cognizable by Courts of First Instance, without regard to the limits of punishment (Sec. 87, Judiciary Law; Sec. 2, Rule 112, Rules of Court).

An estafa case, involving the amount of P1,900, as alleged in the complaint herein, is punishable with arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum or four (4) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months (Art 315[3rd], Revised Penal Code). It is within the original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. A municipal or city court has jurisdiction over estafa cases where the amount involved does not exceed two hundred pesos (Sec. 87[b] [3], Judiciary Law).

We hold that on the basis of the complaint and the supporting affidavit of the complainant the municipal court of Mandaluyong could conduct the preliminary investigation because an essential ingredient of the estafa charge, which was the actual payment to the accused of the amount swindled, took place in Mandaluyong or in the office of the municipal judge himself. Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 14. Place where action is to be instituted. — (a) In all criminal prosecutions the action 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."cralaw virtua1aw library

To determine whether the offense was committed within the court’s territorial jurisdiction, the allegations of the complaint or information are controlling (Arches v. Bellasillo, 81 Phil. 190, 193; 4 Moran’s Comments on the Rules of Court, 1970 Ed., pp. 224-225).

The circumstance that the deceitful manipulations or false pretenses employed by the accused, as shown in the vouchers, might have been perpetrated in Quezon City does not preclude the institution of the criminal action in Mandaluyong where the damage was consummated. Deceit and damage are the basic elements of estafa.

The estafa involved in this case appears to be a transitory or continuing offense. It could be filed either in Quezon City or in Rizal. The theory is that a person charged with a transitory offense may be tried in any jurisdiction where the offense is in part committed. In transitory or continuing offenses in which some acts material and essential to the crime and requisite to its consummation occur in one province and some in another, the court of either province has jurisdiction to try the case, it being understood that the first court taking cognizance of the case will exclude the others (4 Moran’s Comments on the Rules of Court, 1970 Ed., pp. 61-62).

It results that the petition in this case, insofar as it was grounded on the lower court’s alleged lack of jurisdiction (venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional, Ragpala v. J.P. of Tubod, Lanao, 109 Phil. 373, 378), is devoid of merit.

Generally, certiorari, prohibition or mandamus do not lie to review an order denying a motion to quash (Lim v. Sabarre, L-22002, July 20, 1968, 24 SCRA 76, 78-80; Ramos, Jr. v. Pamaran, L-38271, October 28, 1974, 60 SCRA 327).

However, petitioner’s contention in her motion to quash that Judge Cesar C. Cruz should have inhibited himself from investigating the case because he is listed as a witness in the complaint is tenable. Respondent Cruz could not have displayed the cold neutrality of an impartial judge in this case. He resigned as municipal judge of Mandaluyong effective on December 31, 1971. The incumbent municipal judge of that municipality is Judge Hermenegildo Cruz who was appointed on December 21, 1973.

It is advisable in the interest of justice that the case be reinvestigated by Judge Hermenegildo Cruz.

WHEREFORE, the petition is denied without prejudice to a new preliminary investigation being conducted by the incumbent municipal judge of Mandaluyong. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Makalintal, C.J., Fernando, Barredo and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.

Antonio, J., is on leave.




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






August-1975 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-26869 August 6, 1975 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MARIANO CU UNJIENG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28398 August 6, 1975 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JOHN L. MANNING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29432 August 6, 1975 - JAI-ALAI CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLAND

  • G.R. No. L-31665 August 6, 1975 - LEONARDO ALMEDA v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ

  • G.R. No. L-38745 August 6, 1975 - LUCIA TAN v. ARADOR VALDEHUEZA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 449-MJ August 7, 1975 - PEDRO H. YARANON v. ANTONIO RUBIO

  • G.R. No. L-21161 August 7, 1975 - PACIFICA EVANGELISTA v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-26428 August 7, 1975 - AMADEO H. CRUZ v. PEDRO C. NAVARRO

  • G.R. No. L-27762 August 7, 1975 - AQUILINO C. MAULEON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28329 August 7, 1975 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. ESSO STANDARD EASTERN, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-35946 August 7, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRIMITIVO SALAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20085 August 8, 1975 - PHILIPPINE TOBACCO FLUE CURING AND REDRYING CORPORATION v. RIZALINO PABLO

  • G.R. No. L-29130 August 8, 1975 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DIONISIO MIRANG

  • G.R. No. L-32495 August 13, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO S. MOISES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27813 August 15, 1975 - ATLAS FERTILIZER CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-26321 August 19, 1975 - CITY OF CEBU, ET AL. v. JOSE M. MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. L-32387 August 19, 1975 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. NDC EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS’ UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40552 August 20, 1975 - DIOSDADO T. ABUGOTAL v. MEYNARDO A. TIRO

  • G.R. No. L-27916 August 21, 1975 - JOVENCIO A. REYES v. ABELARDO SUBIDO

  • G.R. No. L-28566 August 21, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO OGAPAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40970 August 21, 1975 - IN RE: PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. TEOTIMO TANGONAN

  • G.R. No. L-29776 August 27, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE ECHALUCE, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. P-165 August 28, 1975 - DANIEL GUTIERREZ v. VIRGINIA G. FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-20869 August 28, 1975 - ALICIA O. ARCEGA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27410 August 28, 1975 - DINA TUZON v. CESAR C. CRUZ

  • A.M. No. P-147 August 29, 1975 - ANDRES SUCK v. ROLANDO DIAZ

  • A.C. No. 1162 August 29, 1975 - IN RE: VICTORIO D. LANUEVO

  • G.R. No. L-19620 August 29, 1975 - IN RE: OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF TIRSO LORENZO v. LUZON SURETY COMPANY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-22554 August 29, 1975 - DELFIN LIM, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO PONCE DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22782 August 29, 1975 - IGNACIO GONE, ET AL. v. DISTRICT ENGINEER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26762 August 29, 1975 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-27204 August 29, 1975 - CASIMIRO V. ARKONCEL v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BASILAN CITY

  • G.R. No. L-27771 August 29, 1975 - MAXIMO CALALANG, ET AL. v. JUAN DE BORJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29724 August 29, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAURO TIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32534 August 29, 1975 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION-AFL-VIMCONTU v. ANTONIO D. CINCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32641 August 29, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAGUIA UNDONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37034 August 29, 1975 - JACQUELINE INDUSTRIES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-38076-80 August 29, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO VENZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39087 August 29, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO Q. DE JESUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40018 August 29, 1975 - NORTHERN MOTORS, INC. v. JORGE R. COQUIA

  • G.R. No. L-40098 August 29, 1975 - ANTONIO LIM TANHU, ET AL. v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40474 August 29, 1975 - CEBU OXYGEN & ACETYLENE CO., INC. v. PASCUAL A. BERCILLES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40486 August 29, 1975 - PAULINO PADUA, ET AL. v. GREGORIO N. ROBLES, ET AL.