Case On RA 9262 A Transitory Offense
Case On RA 9262 A Transitory Offense
Case On RA 9262 A Transitory Offense
In the case of Isip vs People (GR 170298, June 26, 2007), penned by
Associate Justice Minita Chico Nazario, the Supreme Court explained the
general rule that in criminal action the venue is jurisdictional, thus:
“The place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue
of the action, but 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
should have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. xxx”
Additionally, in AAA vs BBB (GR 212448, Jan. 11, 2018), the Supreme
Court, through Associate Justice Noel Tijam, pronounced:
Applying the foregoing to your situation, it is clear that your mother may
file a criminal complaint for violation of Section 5 (i) of RA 9262 (acts
“causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the
woman or her children xxx”) in the Philippine courts even if the offender
committed the act/s constituting psychological violence outside the
Philippines because acts of violence against women and their children
under RA 9262 is a transitory or continuing crime
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).
What may be gleaned from Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262 is that the law
contemplates that acts of violence against women and their children may
manifest as transitory or continuing crimes; meaning that some acts
material and essential thereto and requisite in their consummation occur in
one municipality or territory, while some occur in another. In such cases,
the court wherein any of the crime's essential and material acts have been
committed maintains jurisdiction to try the case; it being understood that
the first court taking cognizance of the same excludes the other. Thus, a
person charged with a continuing or transitory crime may be validly tried
in any municipality or territory where the offense was in part committed,
Morillo v. People, supra note 17, at 206.