SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 164938. August 22, 2005]

VICTOR C. AGUSTIN, petitioner, vs. HON. FERNANDO VIL

PAMINTUAN, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the
Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 3; ANTHONY DE
LEON and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
DECISION
CALLEJO, SR., J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals
(CA) Decision[1] in CA-G.R. SP No. 70629 dismissing the petition for certiorari and
prohibition filed by petitioner Victor C. Agustin which, in turn, assailed the Order of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City, Branch 3, denying the motion to
quash the Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 17892-R to 17895-R, for libel.
On June 13, 2000, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Baguio City, filed four
separate Informations[2] charging the petitioner, a Philippine Daily Inquirer columnist,
with libel. The inculpatory portion of that in Criminal Case No. 17892-R is
quoted infra, as follows:

That on or about the 17th day of March 2000, in the City of Baguio, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with
deliberate intent and malicious intent and evil motive of attacking, injuring and
impeaching the character, honesty, integrity, virtue and reputation of one Anthony
De Leon the acting general manager of the Baguio Country Club, and as a private
citizen of good standing and reputation in the community and with malicious intent
of exposing the (sic) Anthony De Leon to public hatred, contempt, ridicule,
discredit and dishonor, without any justifiable motive, did then and there willfully,
maliciously and criminally prepare or cause to prepare, write in his column
Cocktails and publish in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, a newspaper of general
circulation in the City of Baguio and in the entire Philippines, wherein in said
column the said accused did then and there defame the complainant Anthony De
Leon by branding and imputing upon him the following defamatory and libelous
statements, to wit:
The trysting place between the President Marcos and Hollywood actress Dovie
Beams is not the subject of a high level tax evasion investigation ordered by no less
than the new BIR Commissioner, Dakila Fonacier.

That bungalow on Northwestern Street had hastily changed hands in the last two
years, and had supposedly been sold to, first Anthony De Leon, the acting general
manager of the exclusive Baguio Country Club, who in turn disposed of it to an
unwitting Chinoy couple.
According to preliminary BIR findings, the transfer to Mr. De Leon is already
spurious since the cook De Leon had been missing and had gone TNT in New
York more than eight years ago. The spurious sale to the male De Leon who is not
related to the cook, was necessary to make it appear that it had been an intrafamily transfer.
Second, the Baguio Country Club manager made it appear that he and his family
had been using the house himself, but the BIR had now gotten a certification from
the Greenhills homeowners association that the said bungalow has all these years
been rented to third parties, the last of which was an ADB executive.
The most damaging of the findings was the supposed transfer price of the
bungalow between the De Leons and how much the bungalow was later palmed off
to the Chinese-Filipino couple.
We will leave those details for the BIR Commissioner to announce himself, that, if
he could overcome the tremendous and well-oiled lobbying efforts by De Leons
principals.
Tip: One of the principals is a lawyer and self-proclaimed best friend of Lenny
Dragon Lady de Jesus.
which aforesaid defamatory, malicious and libelous words and statements have
been read by the personnel of the Baguio Country Club, by the residents of the
City of Baguio, and by the public in the other parts of the country, and that those
libelous and defamatory words and statements aforementioned are untrue, false and
malicious tending to impeach the character, integrity, virtue and reputation of the
said Anthony De Leon as Acting General Manager of the Baguio Country Club,
thus, placing and causing said Anthony De Leon to public hatred, contempt,
dishonor, discredit and ridicule which acts are serious and insulting in nature, to
the damage and prejudice of the said Anthony De Leon.[3]
Except for the alleged libelous articles, as well as the dates of the commission of
the crimes charged therein, the three other Informations are similarly worded.
Agustin was arraigned on September 10, 2001, and pleaded not guilty to all the
charges.[4]
Agustin then filed a Motion to Quash the Informations, on the sole ground that
the court had no jurisdiction over the offenses charged. He pointed out that the said
Informations did not contain any allegation that the offended party, Anthony de Leon,

was actually residing in Baguio City, or that the alleged libelous articles were printed
and first published in a newspaper of general circulation in Baguio City.
Private complainant De Leon, through counsel, opposed the motion, alleging that
he was a bona fide resident of the Baguio Country Club located at the Country Club
Road, Baguio City; he was also the acting general manager of the club at the time
the alleged libelous article was published. He emphasized that the Informations
alleged that he was of good standing and reputation in the community, and that the
word community meant Baguio City, where he was residing. Moreover, Agustin
was estopped from assailing the courts lack of jurisdiction since he was arraigned
before he filed his motion to quash the Information. Even if it may be assumed that
there was some ambiguity in the Informations as to whether he was an actual
resident of Baguio City, amending them would suffice; based on the entirety of the
context and applying the doctrine of necessary implication, there can be no other
conclusion than that he was a resident of Baguio City.
By way of Reply, Agustin averred that the allegations in the Informations (that
the private complainant was the acting general manager of the Baguio Country Club
and was a private citizen of good standing and reputation in the community) do not
constitute an allegation that the private complainant was an actual resident of Baguio
City. He insisted that to construe the word community in the Informations to mean
the community in Baguio City would be to unduly strain the limits of a fair
interpretation; there must be clear and positive allegations in the Informations that
the private complainant actually resided in Baguio City. He argued that he was not
estopped from assailing the courts jurisdiction over the crimes charged even after
his arraignment because lack of jurisdiction is a matter which can be dealt with at
any time.
On January 16, 2002, the trial court issued an Order[5] denying the motion to
quash, holding that in the light of the petitioners admission that the private
complainant was the General Manager of the Baguio Country Club, it was
reasonable to infer therefrom that the private complainant was actually a resident of
Baguio City at the time the alleged libelous articles were published.
Agustin filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order, insisting that the mere
fact that the private complainant was the General Manager of the Baguio Country
Club did not necessarily mean that the latter was actually residing in Baguio City, as
it was also possible that he was actually residing in a place nearby. The trial court,
however, denied the motion on April 1, 2002.
Agustin forthwith filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with a plea for an
injunctive relief before the Court of Appeals (CA), claiming that the trial court
committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
denying his Motion to Quash.
On February 24, 2004, the CA rendered a decision dismissing the petition. It
disagreed with Agustin, and held that the trial court did not commit a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in so ruling. According to the
CA, while the Informations filed by the prosecution did not contain allegations that
the complainant was actually a resident of Baguio City at the time the alleged
libelous articles were printed and first published, and that the alleged libelous articles
were printed and first published in Baguio City, such defects were merely of form and
not of substance. Thus, there is no need to quash the Informations, as they may

merely be amended pursuant to Section 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, which provides that an amendment, either of form or
substance, may be made at any time before the accused enters a plea to the charge,
and thereafter, as to all matters of form with leave of court. [6] The CA further ruled
that any amendment that would be made to conform to the private complainants
residency requirements would not place the accused at a disadvantage.
Agustin filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision, which the appellate
court denied for lack of merit.[7]
Agustin, now the petitioner, insists that the CA erred in dismissing his petition
for certiorari and prohibition, it appearing that the trial court committed a grave abuse
of its discretion in denying his Motion to Quash the Informations, as well as his
motion for reconsideration of the trial courts order denying the same.
The petitioner maintains that in the absence of any allegations in the
Informations that the private respondent was actually residing in Baguio City, or that
the alleged libelous articles were printed and first published in Baguio City as
mandated by Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, the trial court had no
jurisdiction over the offenses charged. He asserts that the amendments of the
Informations would likewise be improper, considering that the defects of the
Informations were not merely of form but of substance. The petitioner posits that
venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional and mandatory; hence, conformably with the
decisions of the Court in Lopez v. City Judge,[8] and Agbayani v. Sayo,[9] the
Informations must be quashed.
In its Comment on the petition, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
maintains that the failure of the Informations to allege that the private respondent is a
resident of Baguio City (where the Informations were filed) is not a jurisdictional
defect. It asserts that the averment in the Informations that the crimes charged were
committed within the jurisdiction of the trial court in Baguio City, taken in conjunction
with the other allegations therein, are sufficient to vest jurisdiction over the subject
cases in the RTC of Baguio City.
For his part, the private complainant reiterated his arguments in the RTC and in
the CA in his Comment on the Petition.
The threshold issues in the present petition are (1) whether or not the RTC of
Baguio City has jurisdiction over the offenses charged in the four Informations on the
premise that the Informations are defective; and (2) whether the Informations may be
amended to cure the said defects.
The petition is meritorious.
Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction.[10] The jurisdiction
of a court over the criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or
Information, and the offense must have been committed or any one of its essential
ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.[11]
Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code provides

ART. 360. Persons responsible. Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause
the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar means,
shall be responsible for the same.

The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a

daily newspaper, magazine or serial publication, shall be responsible for the
defamations contained therein to the same extent as if he were the author thereof.
The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations as
provided for in this chapter, shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the
Court of First Instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed
and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time
of the commission of the offense; Provided, however, That where one of the
offended parties is a public officer whose office is in the City of Manila at the time
of the commission of the offense, the action shall be filed in the Court of First
Instance of the City of Manila or of the city or province where the libelous article
is printed and first published, and in case such public officer does not hold office in
the City of Manila, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance or the
province or city where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense
or where the libelous article is printed and first published and in case one of the
offended parties is a private individual, the action shall be filed in the Court of
First Instance of the province or city where he actually resides at the time of the
commission of the offense or where the libelous matter is printed and first
published: Provided, further, That the civil action shall be filed in the same court
where the criminal action is filed and vice versa: Provided, furthermore, That the
court where the criminal action or civil action for damages is first filed, shall
acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts: And provided, finally, That
this amendment shall not apply to cases of written defamations, the civil and/or
criminal actions to which have been filed in court at the time of the effectivity of
this law.
Preliminary investigation of criminal actions for written defamations as provided
for in the chapter shall be conducted by the provincial or city fiscal of the province
or city, or by the municipal court of the city or capital of the province where such
actions may be instituted in accordance with the provisions of this article.
No criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation of a crime
which cannot be prosecuted de oficio shall be brought except at the instance of and
upon complaint expressly filed by the offended party.
Thus, the rules on venue in Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code are as
follows:

1.
Whether the offended party is a public official or a private person, the
criminal action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city
where the libelous article is printed and first published.

2.
If the offended party is a private individual, the criminal action may also be
filed in the Court of First Instance of the province where he actually resided at the
time of the commission of the offense.
3.
If the offended party is a public officer whose office is in Manila at the time
of the commission of the offense, the action may be filed in the Court of First
Instance of Manila.
4.
If the offended party is a public officer holding office outside of Manila, the
action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he
held office at the time of the commission of the offense.[12]
Experience has shown that under the old rule, the offended party could harass
the accused in a libel case by laying the venue of the criminal action in a remote or
distant places.[13] To obviate controversies as to the venue of the criminal action from
written defamation, the complaint or Information should contain allegations as to
whether the offended party was a public officer or a private individual at the time the
offense was committed, and where he was actually residing at that time; whenever
possible, the place where the written defamation was printed and first published
should likewise be alleged.[14]
In this case, the Informations did not allege that the offended party was actually
residing in Baguio City at the time of the commission of the offenses, or that the
alleged libelous articles were printed and first published in Baguio City. It cannot
even be inferred from the allegation the offended party was the Acting General
Manager of the Baguio Country Club and of good standing and reputation in the
community that the private respondent (complainant) was actually residing in
Baguio City.
The residence of a person is his personal, actual or physical habitation or his
actual residence or place of abode provided he resides therein with continuity and
consistency; no particular length of time of residence is required. However, the
residence must be more than temporary.[15] The term residence involves the idea of
something beyond a transient stay in the place; and to be a resident, one must abide
in a place where he had a house therein. [16] To create a residence in a particular
place, two fundamental elements are essential: The actual bodily presence in the
place, combined with a freely exercised intention of remaining there permanently or
for an indefinite time.[17] While it is possible that as the Acting General Manager of
the Baguio Country Club, the petitioner may have been actually residing in Baguio
City, the Informations did not state that he was actually residing therein when the
alleged crimes were committed. It is entirely possible that the private complainant
may have been actually residing in another place. One who transacts business in a
place and spends considerable time thereat does not render such person a resident
therein.[18] Where one may have or own a business does not of itself constitute
residence within the meaning of the statute. Pursuit of business in a place is not
conclusive of residence there for purposes of venue.[19]
We do not agree with the ruling of the CA that the defects in the Informations are
merely formal. Indeed, the absence of any allegations in the Informations that the
offended party was actually residing in Baguio City, where the crimes charged were

allegedly committed, is a substantial defect. Indeed, the amendments of the

Informations to vest jurisdiction upon the court cannot be allowed.[20]
IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 70629 are SET ASIDE. The
Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 3, is hereby DIRECTED TO QUASH the
Informations and DISMISS the cases against petitioner Victor C. Agustin in Criminal
Case Nos. 17892-R to 17895-R.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Tinga, and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.

[1]

Penned by Associate Justice Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis, with Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr.
and Hakim S. Abdulwahid, concurring; Rollo, pp. 39-45.

[2]

Rollo, pp. 52-59.

[3]

Rollo, pp. 52-53.

[4]

Id. at 197-198.

[5]

Rollo, p. 50.

[6]

Rollo, p. 44.

[7]

Id. at 47.

[8]

G.R. No. L-25795, 29 October 1966, 18 SCRA 616.

[9]

G.R. No. L-47880, 30 April 1979, 89 SCRA 699.

[10]

Agbayani v. Sayo, supra; Lopez v. City Judge, supra.

[11]

Uy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119000, 28 July 1997, 276 SCRA 367.

[12]

Agbayani v. Sayo, supra, p. 705.

[13]

Id. at 704.

[14]

Id. at 706.

[15]

Boleyley v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 128734, 14 September 1999, 314 SCRA 364.

[16]

In Re: Zurick, 33 F.2d. 364 (1929).

[17]

Barth v. Barth, 189 S.W.2d 451 (1945).

[18]

Agey v. Red Star Supply Co., 113 S.W.2d 212 (1938).

[19]

Green v. Newton, 245 S.W.2d 299 (1951).

[20]

Agbayani v. Sayo, supra; Almeda v. Villaluz, G.R. No. L-31665, 6 August 1975, 66 SCRA 38.