Case Title : VICENTE FOZ, JR. and DANNY G. FAJARDO, petitioners, vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.Case Nature : PETITION for review on

certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.
Syllabi Class : Criminal Procedure ; Jurisdiction ; Venue ; Libel ;

Facts:
Petitioners Vicente Foz, Jr and Danny Fajardo were charged with the crime of libel. Upon arraignment,
they were assisted by counsel de parte and pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Trial thereafter
ensued, finding both of them guilty. Petitioners moved for recon but was denied. Dissatisfied, they
appealed to CA who affirmed in toto the RTC decision. They then filed a motion for recon which CA
denied. In their petition to the SC, petitioners raise for the first time the issue that the information
charging them with libel did not contain allegations sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the RTC of Iloilo
City.
Issue: WON the RTC of Iloilo City had jurisdiction over the offense of libel as charged.
Criminal Procedure; Jurisdiction; Pleadings and Practice; The rule is settled that an
objection based on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the offense charged may
be raised or considered motu proprio by the court at any stage of the proceedings or on
appeal.—The Court notes that petitioners raised for the first time the issue of the RTC’s
jurisdiction over the offense charged only in their Reply filed before this Court and finds that
petitioners are not precluded from doing so. In Fukuzume v. People, 474 SCRA 570 (2005),
the Court ruled: “It is noted that it was only in his petition with the CA that Fukuzume raised
the issue of the trial court’s jurisdiction over the offense charged. Nonetheless, the rule is
settled that an objection based on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the offense
charged may be raised or considered motu proprio by the court at any stage of the proceedings
or on appeal. Moreover, jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal case cannot be
conferred upon the court by the accused, by express waiver or otherwise, since such
jurisdiction is conferred by the sovereign authority which organized the court, and is given
only by law in the manner and form prescribed by law. While an exception to this rule was
recognized by this Court beginning with the landmark case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy,
wherein the defense of lack of jurisdiction by the court which rendered the questioned ruling
was considered to be barred by laches, we find that the factual circumstances involved in said
case, a civil case, which justified the departure from the general rule are not present in the
instant criminal case.”
Same; Same; Venue; Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction — it
is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases the offense
should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients took place within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court.—Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of
jurisdiction. The Court held in Macasaet v. People, 452 SCRA 255 (2005), that: It is a
fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases the offense
should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients took place within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court. Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory
where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense allegedly committed
therein by the accused. Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense
allegedly committed outside of that limited territory. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court
over the criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. And
once it is so shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case. However, if the evidence
adduced during the trial show that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court
should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.”
Same; Same; Same; Libel; Rules on Venue in Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code.—
In Agbayani v. Sayo, 89 SCRA 699 (1979), the rules on venue in Article 360 were restated 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.

Same; Same; Same; Same; The allegations in the Information that “Panay News, a daily
publication with a considerable circulation in the City of Iloilo and throughout the region”
only showed that Iloilo was the place where Panay News was in considerable circulation but
did not establish that the said publication was printed and first published in Iloilo City.—
The relevant portion of the Information for libel filed in this case which for convenience the
Court quotes again, to wit: “That on or about the 5th day of July, 1994 in the City of Iloilo,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this court, both the accused as columnists and
Editor-Publisher, respectively, of Panay News, a daily publication with a considerable
circulation in the City of Iloilo and throughout the region, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously with malicious intent of impeaching the virtue, honesty, integrity
and reputation of Dr. Edgar Portigo, a physician and medical practitioner in Iloilo City, and
with the malicious intent of injuring and exposing said Dr. Edgar Portigo to public hatred,
contempt and ridicule, write and publish in the regular issue of said daily publication on July
5, 1994, a certain article entitled “MEET DR. PORTIGO, COMPANY PHYSICIAN....” The
allegations in the Information that “Panay News, a daily publication with a considerable
circulation in the City of Iloilo and throughout the region” only showed that Iloilo was the
place where Panay News was in considerable circulation but did not establish that the said
publication was printed and first published in Iloilo City.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Alleging in the Information that the offended party is a
physician and medical practitioner in a particular place does not clearly and positively
indicate that said person is actually residing in such place at the time of the commission of
the offense.—Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code as amended provides that a private
individual may also file the libel case in the RTC of the province where he actually resided at
the time of the commission of the offense. The Information filed against petitioners failed to
allege the residence of Dr. Portigo. While the Information alleges that “Dr. Edgar Portigo is
a physician and medical practitioner in Iloilo City,” such allegation did not clearly and
positively indicate that he was actually residing in Iloilo City at the time of the commission
of the offense. It is possible that Dr. Portigo was actually residing in another place.

Same; Same; Same; Same; One who transacts business in a place and spends
considerable time thereat does not render such person a resident therein — where one may
have or own a business does not of itself constitute residence within the meaning of the
statute.—In Agustin v. Pamintuan, 467 SCRA 601 (2005), where the Information for libel
alleged that the “offended party was the Acting General Manager of the Baguio Country Club
and of good standing and reputation in the community,” the Court did not find such allegation
sufficient to establish that the offended party was actually residing in Baguio City. The Court
explained its ruling in this wise: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Case Title : 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.Case Nature : PETITION for review on certiorari
of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
Syllabi Class : Criminal Law|Criminal
Procedure|Venue|Jurisdictions|Libel|Residence|Words and
Phrases|Information|Pleadings and Practice

Agustin v. PamintuanFacts:Petitioner Victor Agustin was charged with 4 separate Informations of libel by the Office
of theCity Prosecutor of Baguio. He was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty to all the charges. OnSeptember 10,
2001, he then filed a Motion to Quash the Informations on the sole ground thatthe court had no jurisdiction over the
offenses charged. He pointed out that the said Informationsdid not contain any allegation that the offended party was
actually residing in Baguio City or thatthe alleged libelous articles were printed and first published in a newspaper
of general circulationin Baguio City. Private complainant opposed the motion alleging that he was a bona fide
residentand acting general manager of Baguio Country Club.The RTC issued an order denying the MTQ and the
motion for reconsideration of theOrder. Petitioner then brought the case to the CA. The CA rendered a decision
dismissing the petition and the motion for reconsideration of the decision for lack of merit. Thus, petitioner fileda
motion for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court.The petitioner contented that in the absence of any
allegations in the Informations that the privaterespondent was actually residing in Baguio City, or that the alleged
libelous articles were printedand first published in Baguio as mandated by Article 360 of the RPC, the trial court had
no jurisdiction over the offenses charged. He asserted that the amendments of the Informationswould be improper,
considering that the defects of the Informations were not of form but ofsubstance.The OSG maintained that the
failure of the Informations to allege that the private respondent is aresident of Baguio City is not a jurisdictional
defect. It asserted that the averment in theInformations that the crimes charged were committed within the
jurisdiction of the trial court inBaguio City, taken in conjunction with the other allegations therein are sufficient to
vest jurisdiction over the subject cases in the RTC of Baguio City.

Issue:Whether the RTC of Baguio City has jurisdiction over the offenses charged in the fourInformations.

Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure; Venue; Jurisdictions;Venue in criminal cases is an

essential element of jurisdiction.—Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of
jurisdiction. 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.
Same; Same; Same; Rules on Venue.—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.
Same; Same; Same; Libel; 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.—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. 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. 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.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Residence; Words and Phrases; The residence of a person is
his personal, actual or physical habitation or actual residence or place of abode or his actual
residence or place of abode provided he resides therein with continuity and consistency; The
term residence involves the idea of something beyond a transient stay in the place—one who
transacts business in a place and spends considerable time thereat does not render such a
person a resident therein.—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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Information; Pleadings and Practice; The absence of
any allegations in the Informations that the offended party was actually residing where the
crimes charged were allegedly committed is a substantial defect.—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.