David v. Marquez

2/23/22, 12:52 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 825
G.R. No. 209859. June 5, 2017.*
EILEEN P. DAVID, petitioner, vs. GLENDA S. MARQUEZ,

respondent.
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Venue; Venue in criminal cases is

an essential element of jurisdiction.—Indeed, venue in criminal cases is an
essential element of jurisdiction. As explained by this Court in the case of
Foz, Jr. v. People, 603 SCRA 124 (2009): 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 a 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. (emphasis ours) Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure provides: SEC. 15. Place where action is to be
instituted.—a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be
instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the
offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred.
Same; Same; Same; Illegal Recruitment; Section 9 of Republic Act
(RA) No. 8042 fixed an alternative venue from that provided in Section 15(a)
of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, i.e., a criminal action arising from
illegal recruitment may also be filed where the offended party actually
resides at the time of the commission of the offense and that the court where
the criminal action is first filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of
other courts.—Sec. 9 of RA No. 8042, however, fixed an alternative venue
from that provided in Section 15(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, i.e.,
a criminal
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f2259adefa534ee36000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/21
531
VOL. 825, JUNE 5, 2017 531

David vs. Marquez
action arising from illegal recruitment may also be filed where the
offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense
and that the court where the criminal action is first filed shall acquire
jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts. Despite the clear provision of
the law, the RTC of Manila declared that it has no jurisdiction to try the
cases as the illegal Recruitment and Estafa were not committed in its
territory but in Kidapawan City. We are, thus, one with the CA in finding
that the RTC of Manila committed grave abuse of discretion and in fact, a
palpable error, in ordering the quashal of the Informations. The express
provision of the law is clear that the filing of criminal actions arising from
illegal recruitment before the RTC of the province or city where the
offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense
is allowed. It goes without saying that the dismissal of the case on a wrong
ground, indeed, deprived the prosecution, as well as the respondent as
complainant, of their day in court.
Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Appeals; Double Jeopardy;
Generally, the prosecution cannot appeal or bring error proceedings from a
judgment rendered in favor of the defendant in a criminal case due to the
final and executory nature of a judgment of acquittal and the constitutional
prohibition against double jeopardy.—There is no question that, generally,
the prosecution cannot appeal or bring error proceedings from a judgment
rendered in favor of the defendant in a criminal case due to the final and
executory nature of a judgment of acquittal and the constitutional
prohibition against double jeopardy. Despite acquittal, however, the
offended party or the accused may appeal, but only with respect to the civil
aspect of the decision. This Court has also entertained petitions for
certiorari questioning the acquittal of the accused in, or the dismissal of,
criminal cases upon clear showing that the lower court, in acquitting the
accused, committed not merely errors of judgment but also grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a denial of due
process, thus rendering the assailed judgment void. When the order of
dismissal is annulled or set aside by an appellate court in an original special
civil action via certiorari, the right of the accused against double jeopardy is
not violated.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The right of offended parties to appeal or
question an order of the trial court which deprives them of due process has
always been recognized, the only limitation being that
532
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

David vs. Marquez
they cannot appeal any adverse ruling if to do so would place the

accused in double jeopardy.—In as early as the 1989 case of People v.
Santiago, 174 SCRA 143, this Court has ruled that a private offended party
can file a special civil action for certiorari questioning the trial court’s order
acquitting the accused or dismissing the case, viz.: In such special civil
action for certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, wherein it is
alleged that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack of jurisdiction or on other jurisdictional grounds, the rules state that
the petition may be filed by the person aggrieved. In such case, the
aggrieved parties are the State and the private offended party or
complainant. The complainant has an interest in the civil aspect of the case
so he/she may file such special civil action questioning the decision or
action of the respondent court on jurisdictional grounds. In so doing,
complainant should not bring the action in the name of the People of
Philippines. The action may be prosecuted in the name of said
complainant. (emphasis supplied) Moreover, there have been occasions
when this Court has allowed the offended party to pursue the criminal action
on his/her own behalf, as when there is a denial of due process as in this
case. Indeed, the right of offended parties to appeal or question an order of
the trial court which deprives them of due process has always been
recognized, the only limitation being that they cannot appeal any adverse
ruling if to do so would place the accused in double jeopardy.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Due Process; Inasmuch as the dismissal of
the charges by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) was done without regard to
due process of law, the same is null and void. It is as if there was no
acquittal or dismissal of the case at all, and the same cannot constitute a
claim for double jeopardy.—Inasmuch as the dismissal of the charges by the
RTC was done without regard to due process of law, the same is null and
void. It is as if there was no acquittal or dismissal of the case at all, and the
same cannot constitute a claim for double jeopardy. Also, it is elementary
that double jeopardy attaches only when the following elements concur: (1)
the accused is charged under a complaint or information sufficient in form
and substance to sustain their conviction; (2) the court has jurisdiction; (3)
the accused has been arraigned and has pleaded; and (4) he/she is convicted
or acquitted, or the case is dismissed without his/her consent. Thus, as found
by the CA, double jeopardy does not attach in this case as the dismissal was
granted upon motion of the
533
VOL. 825, JUNE 5, 2017 533

David vs. Marquez
petitioner. To be sure, no fundamental right of the petitioner was

violated in the filing of the petition for certiorari before the CA by the
respondent, as well as the grant thereof by the CA.
Same; Same; Judgments; Procedural Rules and Technicalities;
Litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on their merits and not
on sheer technicalities.—Nothing is more settled than the principle that
rules of procedure are meant to be tools to facilitate a fair and orderly
conduct of proceedings. Strict adherence thereto must not get in the way of
achieving substantial justice. As long as their purpose is sufficiently met and
no violation of due process and fair play takes place, the rules should be
liberally construed. Liberal construction of the rules is the controlling
principle to effect substantial justice. The relaxation or suspension of
procedural rules, or the exemption of a case from their operation, is
warranted when compelling reasons or when the purpose of justice requires
it. Thus, litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on their merits
and not on sheer technicalities.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Jaso, Dorillo & Associates for petitioner.
Eduardo E. Francisco for respondent.
TIJAM, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45,

assailing the Decision2 dated May 29, 2013 and Resolution3 dated
November 6, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 3-30 with Annexes.

2 Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, and concurred in by
Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Rodil V. Zalameda; id., at pp. 31-40.
3 Id., at pp. 41-42.
534
David vs. Marquez
G.R. S.P. No. 124839, reinstating the criminal cases of Illegal

Recruitment and Estafa against Petitioner Eileen David.
The Procedural and Factual Antecedents
In a Sinumpaang Salaysay filed before the Office of the City

Prosecutor of Manila, Respondent Glenda Marquez alleged, among
others, that she is a resident of Sampaloc, Manila and that sometime
in March 2005, petitioner approached her in Kidapawan City and
represented that she could recruit her to work abroad.4 It was further
alleged that petitioner demanded payment of placement fees and
other expenses from the respondent for the processing of the latter’s
application, to which the respondent heeded.5 Respondent’s
application was, however, denied and worse, the money that she put
out therefor was never returned.6
In her Counter-Affidavit and Counter Charge, petitioner averred
that it was physically impossible for her to have committed the said
acts as she was in Canada at the alleged time of recruitment as
evidenced by the entries in her passport.7 Petitioner further averred
that she was never engaged in the recruitment business.8 The
petitioner alleged that the amount deposited in her account was not
for her but was just coursed through her to be given to her friend in
Canada who was the one processing respondent’s application, as
evidenced by a certification to that effect issued by the said friend.9
Further, petitioner argued before the Prosecutor that assuming
arguendo that the allegations of recruitment were true, the case
should be filed in Kidapawan City and not in Manila.10
_______________
4 Id., at p. 32.
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id., at p. 6.
10 Id., at pp. 31-40.
535
VOL. 825, JUNE 5, 2017 535

David vs. Marquez
On December 9, 2008, two separate Informations were filed

against petitioner for Illegal Recruitment and Estafa, respectively.
The accusatory portions thereof read as follows:
Criminal Case No. 08-265539
The undersigned accuses EILEEN DAVID of a violation of Article 38(a),

P.D. No. 1412, amending certain provision of Book I, P.D. No. 442,
otherwise known as the New Labor Code of the Philippines, in relation to
Article 13(b) and (c) of said code, as further amended by P.D. Nos. 1693,
1920, and 2018 and as further amended by Sec. 6(a), (l) and (m) of Republic
Act 8042, committed as follows:
That sometime in the month of March, 2005, in
the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused representing herself to have
the capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers overseas,
particularly in
Canada, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, for a fee, recruit and
promise employment/job placement to GLENDA S. MARQUEZ without
first having secured the required license from the Department of Labor and
Employment as required by law, and charged or accepted directly or
indirectly from said complainant the amount of P152,670.00 as
placement/processing fee in consideration for her overseas employment,
which amount is in excess of or greater than that specified in the schedule of
allowable fees prescribed by the POEA, and without valid reasons failed to
actually deploy her and continuously fail to reimburse expenses incurred by
her in connection with her documentation and processing for purposes of
her deployment.
Contrary to law.11
_______________
11 Id., at pp. 71-72.
536

David vs. Marquez
Criminal Case No. 08-265540
The undersigned accuses EILEEN P. DAVID of the crime of Estafa, Art.

315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:
That on or about and during the period comprised between March 8,

2005 and April 20, 2007, inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the
said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously
defraud GLENDA S. MARQUEZ in the following manner, to wit: the said
accused, by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representations
which she made to said GLENDA S. MARQUEZ prior to and even
simultaneous with the commission of the fraud, to the effect that she had the
power and capacity to recruit and employ said GLENDA S. MARQUEZ for
overseas employment in Canada as Live-in Caregiver, and could facilitate
the processing of the pertinent papers if given the necessary amount to meet
the requirements thereof, induced and succeeded in inducing the said
GLENDA S. MARQUEZ to give and deliver, as in fact she gave and
delivered to said accused the total amount of Php152,670.00, on the strength
of said manifestations and representations, said accused well knowing that
the same were false and fraudulent and were made solely to obtain, as in
fact, she did obtain the said amount of Php152,670.00, which amount once
in her possession, with intent to defraud, misappropriated, misapplied, and
converted to her own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice
of said GLENDA S. MARQUEZ in the aforesaid amount of Php152,670.00,
Philippine Currency.
Contrary to law.12
The Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On December 11, 2008, warrants of arrest were issued against the

petitioner.
_______________
12 Id., at p. 73.
537
VOL. 825, JUNE 5, 2017 537

David vs. Marquez
On April 15, 2009, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the

Information13 in Criminal Case No. 08-265540, arguing that she was
deprived of her right to seek reconsideration or reinvestigation of the
public prosecutor’s resolution as she was not furnished a copy
thereof.14 Also, petitioner argued that the City Prosecutor of Manila
had no jurisdiction over the case as the alleged crime was committed
in Kidapawan City.
In an Order15 dated May 13, 2011 in Criminal Case No. 08-
265540, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 55,
denied petitioner’s Motion to Quash, ruling that the ground relied

upon by the petitioner in the said motion is not one of those
enumerated under Section 3,16 Rule 117 of the Rules of
_______________
13 Id., at pp. 74-87.

14 RTC of Manila, Branch 55 Order dated May 13, 2011, penned by Judge
Armando A. Yanga, id., at p. 110.
15 Id., at pp. 110-111.
16 SEC. 3. Grounds.—The accused may move to quash the complaint or
information on any of the following grounds:
(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
(b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense
charged;
(c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of
the accused;
(d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so;
(e) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form;
(f) That more than one offense is charged except when a single
punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law;
(g) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;
(h) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal
excuse or justification; and
(i) That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the
offense charged, or the case against
538

David vs. Marquez
Court for quashing a complaint or information.17 As to the

jurisdictional issue, the RTC ruled that it has jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the case, citing Section 9 of Republic Act No. 804218
(RA 8042), which explicitly states that:
A criminal action arising from illegal recruitment as defined herein shall

be filed with the Regional Trial Court of the province or city where the
offense was committed or where the offended party actually resides at
the time of the commission of the offense x x x. (underscoring supplied for
emphasis)19
Since complainant is a resident of Manila, the RTC ruled that the

second ground interposed by the petitioner is devoid of merit.20
Thus:
In view of the foregoing, the Motion to Quash is hereby DENIED for

lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.21
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration22 of the said Order

alleging that she just found out that there were two Informations
filed against her, one for Illegal Recruitment in Criminal Case No.
08-26553923 and another for Estafa24 in Criminal Case No. 08-
265540. Petitioner maintained that the alleged crimes were
committed in Kidapawan City, not in Manila as alleged in the
Informations. Petitioner further
_______________
him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.

17 Rollo, p. 110.
18 The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.
19 Rollo, p. 111.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Id., at pp. 112-118.
23 Not 08-265540 as alleged in the Motion to Quash.
24 Rollo, p. 112.
539
VOL. 825, JUNE 5, 2017 539

David vs. Marquez
alleged that there is no showing that respondent is an actual resident

of Manila but as per her Reply-Affidavit, Manila is merely her postal
address.25 Hence, petitioner again raised a jurisdictional issue in the
said motion.26
In an Order27 dated January 26, 2012, this time in Criminal Cases
Nos. 08-265539-40, the RTC reconsidered its May 13, 2011 Order,
finding that it had no jurisdiction to try the cases since the crimes of
Illegal Recruitment and Estafa were not committed in its territory
but in Kidapawan City, thus:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the instant Motion for

Reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. The Order of this Court dated May
13, 2011 is hereby RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE.
This case is ordered returned to the Office of the Clerk of Court of the
Regional Trial Court for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED.28
On the same date, the RTC also issued an Order29 recalling the
warrants of arrest issued against the petitioner, thus:
Considering that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction over the above
entitled cases, the Order of this Court dated December 11, 2008, pertaining
to the issuance of Warrants of Arrest against herein accused is hereby
cancelled (and) set aside.
WHEREFORE, let the Warrants of Arrest issued in these cases be
ordered RECALLED AND SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.30
_______________
25 Id., at p. 114.
26 Id.
27 Id., at pp. 119-120.
28 Id.
29 Id., at p. 121.
30 Id.
540

David vs. Marquez
Respondent, through the public prosecutor, then filed a Motion

for Reconsideration31 of the said Order, averring that while it
appears in the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
(POEA) pro forma complaint-affidavit that the alleged recruitment
activities took place in Kidapawan City, it also appears in her Reply-
Affidavit, that she deposited certain amounts in several banks in
Manila for the name and account of petitioner as payments for
employment processing and placement fees.32 Thus, part of the
essential elements of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa took place in
Manila.33 Section 9 of RA 8042, above quoted, which states that an
illegal recruitment case may also be filed with the RTC of the
province or city where the offended party actually resides at the time
of the commission of the crime, was likewise invoked in the said
motion.34 Respondent averred that the records show that at the time
of the incident up to the present, she resides in Sampaloc, Manila.35
Petitioner filed an Opposition36 to the said motion. Respondent,

through the public prosecutor, filed a Comment37 thereon and a
Reply38 was then filed by the petitioner.
In an Order39 dated March 16, 2012, the RTC denied
respondent’s motion for reconsideration, ruling that as stated in
respondent’s Sinumpaang Salaysay, the essential elements of Illegal
Recruitment and Estafa took place in Kidapawan City and not in
Manila. The allegation that several deposits for the payment of the
placement fees were made in Manila is of no moment, according to
the RTC, considering that the main
_______________
31 Id., at pp. 122-123.

32 Id., at p. 122.
33 Id.
34 Id.
35 Id.
36 Id., at pp. 124-128.
37 Id., at pp. 129-131.
38 Id., at pp. 132-140.
39 Id., at pp. 139-140.
541
VOL. 825, JUNE 5, 2017 541

David vs. Marquez
transaction actually took place in Kidapawan City, which is the basis

for determining the jurisdiction of the court. Thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion for

Reconsideration filed by the Prosecution is hereby DENIED for lack of
merit. The Orders of the Court both dated January 26, 2012 still stand.
SO ORDERED.40
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Undaunted, respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari before the

CA.
In its assailed Decision, the CA discussed, first, the issue of
respondent’s legal personality to file the said petition and second, the
RTC’s jurisdiction over the case.41
On the first issue, the CA ruled that while it is only the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG) that may represent the People or the
State in criminal proceedings before this Court or the CA, the
private offended party retains the right to bring a special civil action
for certiorari in his/her own name in criminal proceedings before
the courts of law.42 The CA cited Section 1, Rule 122, which
provides that the right to appeal from a final judgment or order in a
criminal case is granted to any party except when the accused is
placed thereby in double jeopardy.43 It also cited this Court’s ruling
that the word party in the said provision must be understood to mean
not only the government and the accused, but also other persons who
may be affected by the judgment rendered in the criminal
proceeding.44 The private complainant, having an interest in the civil
aspect of the case, thus, may file such
_______________
40 Id.
41 Id., at pp. 31-40.
42 Id., at p. 37.
43 Id., at p. 36.
44 Id.
542

David vs. Marquez
action in his/her name to question the decision or action of the

respondent court on jurisdictional grounds.45 In line with this, the
CA also ruled that there is no double jeopardy in this case as the
charges were dismissed upon motion of the petitioner-accused.46
As to the issue on jurisdiction, the CA ruled that the RTC has
jurisdiction over the cases of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa, citing
Section 9 of RA 8042, which provides that a criminal action arising
from illegal recruitment may be filed in the place where the offended
party actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense.47
According to the CA, it was established that herein respondent was
residing in Sampaloc, Manila at the time of the commission of the
crimes.48 Therefore, the two (2) Informations herein were correctly
filed with the RTC of Manila, pursuant to Section 9 of RA 8042.49
The CA disposed, thus:
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The assailed

Order dated January 26, 2012 and Resolution dated March 16, 2012 of the
RTC, Manila, in Criminal Case No. 08-265539 for estafa and Criminal Case
No. 08-265540 for illegal recruitment respectively, are NULLIFIED and
SET ASIDE. The cases are REINSTATED and REMANDED to the court
of origin for appropriate proceedings.
SO ORDERED.50
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in

its Resolution dated November 6, 2013, thus:
_______________
45 Id., at p. 37.
46 Id.
47 Id., at p. 39.
48 Id.
49 Id.
50 Id., at pp. 39-40.
543
VOL. 825, JUNE 5, 2017 543

David vs. Marquez
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of

merit.
SO ORDERED.51
Hence, this Petition.

Petitioner argues that the CA committed a reversible error and
grave abuse of discretion in declaring that the respondent had the
legal personality to assail the dismissal of the criminal cases as
respondent is not the proper party to do so.52 Petitioner argues that
the OSG is the appellate counsel of the People of the Philippines in
all criminal cases and as such, the appeal in the criminal aspect
should be taken solely by the State and the private complainant is
limited only to the appeal of the civil aspect.53 According to the
petitioner, respondent’s action before the CA does not concern the
civil aspect of the case but the validity of the RTC’s Orders.54
On the jurisdictional issue, the petitioner maintains that the RTC
of Manila has no jurisdiction over the cases as the alleged acts
constituting the crimes charged were committed in Kidapawan City
and not in Manila.55
For her part, respondent argues that the argument as regards her
legal personality in filing the petition for certiorari before the CA
reveals that petitioner misunderstood the difference between an
appeal and a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court.56 In fact, respondent agrees with the petitioner that
only the State, through the OSG, may file an appeal in a criminal
57
case. As an appeal is not available for a private complainant in a
criminal case, an
_______________
51 Id., at p. 42.
52 Id., at p. 16.
53 Id.
54 Id., at p. 19.
55 Id., at p. 23.
56 Comment, id., at pp. 184-191.
57 Id., at p. 186.
544

David vs. Marquez
independent action through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65,

therefore, is available to the said aggrieved party.58
Anent the jurisdictional issue, respondent again invokes Section
9 of RA 8042 which allows the filing of an action arising from
illegal recruitment with the RTC of the complainant’s residence.59
The respondent further argues that as regards the charge of Estafa,
considering that the same arose from the illegal recruitment
activities, the said provision allows the filing thereof with the court
of the same place where the Illegal Recruitment case was filed.60
Besides, according to the respondent, since one of the essential
elements of Estafa, i.e., damage or prejudice to the offended party,
took place in Manila, as the offended party resides in Manila, the
RTC of Manila has jurisdiction over the Estafa case.61
Issues
1) Does the RTC of Manila have jurisdiction over the

cases of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa?
2) Does the respondent, on her own, have legal
personality to file the petition for certiorari before the CA?
The Court’s Ruling
The issues shall be discussed ad seriatim.
_______________
58 Id.
59 Id., at p. 188.
60 Id.
61 Id.
545
VOL. 825, JUNE 5, 2017 545

David vs. Marquez
The RTC of Manila has jurisdiction

over the cases of Illegal Recruitment
and Estafa
Indeed, venue in criminal cases is an essential element of

jurisdiction.62 As explained by this Court in the case of Foz, Jr. v.
People:63
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 a 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.64 (emphasis ours)
Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure

provides:
SEC. 15. Place where action is to be instituted.—a) Subject to

existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of
the municipality or
_______________
62 Navaja v. De Castro, G.R. No. 182926, June 22, 2015, 759 SCRA 487.
63 618 Phil. 120; 603 SCRA 124 (2009).
64 Id.
546

David vs. Marquez
territory where the offense was committed or where any of its essential
ingredients occurred. (emphasis ours)
At the risk of being repetitive, Sec. 9 of RA 8042, however, fixed

an alternative venue from that provided in Section 15(a) of the Rules
of Criminal Procedure, i.e., a criminal action arising from illegal
recruitment may also be filed where the offended party actually
resides at the time of the commission of the offense and that the
court where the criminal action is first filed shall acquire jurisdiction
to the exclusion of other courts.65
Despite the clear provision of the law, the RTC of Manila
declared that it has no jurisdiction to try the cases as the Illegal
Recruitment and Estafa were not committed in its territory but in
Kidapawan City.66
We are, thus, one with the CA in finding that the RTC of Manila
committed grave abuse of discretion and in fact, a palpable error, in
ordering the quashal of the Informations. The express provision of
the law is clear that the filing of criminal actions arising from illegal
recruitment before the RTC of the province or city where the
offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of the
offense is allowed. It goes without saying that the dismissal of the
case on a wrong ground, indeed, deprived the prosecution, as well as
the respondent as complainant, of their day in court.
It has been found by both the RTC and the CA that the
respondent resides in Manila; hence, the filing of the case before the
RTC of Manila was proper. Thus, the trial court should have taken
cognizance of the case, and if it will eventually be shown during
trial that the offense was committed somewhere else, then the court
should dismiss the action for want
_______________
65 Sto. Tomas v. Salac, G.R. Nos. 184298-99, November 13, 2012, 685 SCRA
245.
66 Rollo, pp. 119-120.
547
VOL. 825, JUNE 5, 2017 547

David vs. Marquez
of jurisdiction.67 As a matter of fact, the RTC is not unaware of the

above cited provision which allows the filing of the said case before
the RTC of the city where the offended party resides at the time of
the commission of the offense; hence, it originally denied
petitioner’s Motion to Quash. This Court is, thus, baffled by the fact
that the RTC reversed itself upon the petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration on the same ground that it previously invalidated.
Likewise, with the case of Estafa arising from such illegal
recruitment activities, the outright dismissal thereof due to lack of
jurisdiction was not proper, considering that as per the allegations in
the Information, the same was within the jurisdiction of Manila.
During the preliminary investigation of the cases, respondent even
presented evidence that some of the essential elements of the crime
were committed within Manila, such as the payment of processing
and/or placement fees, considering that these were deposited in
certain banks located in Manila.68 Thus, it bears stressing that the
trial court should have proceeded to take cognizance of the case, and
if during the trial it was proven that the offense was committed
somewhere else, that is the time that the trial court should dismiss
the case for want of jurisdiction.69
Undoubtedly, such erroneous outright dismissal of the case is a
nullity for want of due process. The prosecution and the respondent
as the private offended party were not given the opportunity to
present and prosecute their case. Indeed, the prosecution and the
private offended party are as much entitled to due process as the
accused in a criminal case.70
_______________
67 Foz, Jr. v. People, supra note 63.

68 Rollo, p. 122.
70 People v. Santiago, G.R. No. 80778, June 20, 1989, 174 SCRA 143.
548

David vs. Marquez
The respondent has the legal

personality to file a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65.
This procedural issue is not novel. There is no question that,

generally, the prosecution cannot appeal or bring error proceedings
from a judgment rendered in favor of the defendant in a criminal
case due to the final and executory nature of a judgment of acquittal
and the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.71 Despite
acquittal, however, the offended party or the accused may appeal,
but only with respect to the civil aspect of the decision.72
This Court has also entertained petitions for certiorari
questioning the acquittal of the accused in, or the dismissal of,
criminal cases upon clear showing that the lower court, in acquitting
the accused, committed not merely errors of judgment but also grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a
denial of due process, thus rendering the assailed judgment void.73
When the order of dismissal is annulled or set aside by an appellate
court in an original special civil action via certiorari, the right of the
accused against double jeopardy is not violated.74
In as early as the 1989 case of People v. Santiago,75 this Court
has ruled that a private offended party can file a special civil action
for certiorari questioning the trial court’s order acquitting the
accused or dismissing the case, viz.:
_______________
71 People v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 183652, February 25, 2015, 751 SCRA
675.
72 Id.
73 People v. Asis, G.R. No. 173089, August 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 250, citing
People v. Uy, G.R. No. 158157, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 668, 680-681.
74 Id., citing People v. Laguio, Jr., G.R. No. 128587, March 16, 2007, 518 SCRA
393, 408-409.
75 Supra note 70.
549
VOL. 825, JUNE 5, 2017 549

David vs. Marquez
In such special civil action for certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court, wherein it is alleged that the trial court committed a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction or on other jurisdictional
grounds, the rules state that the petition may be filed by the person
aggrieved. In such case, the aggrieved parties are the State and the private
offended party or complainant. The complainant has an interest in the civil
aspect of the case so he/she may file such special civil action questioning the
decision or action of the respondent court on jurisdictional grounds. In so

doing, complainant should not bring the action in the name of the
People of Philippines. The action may be prosecuted in the name of said
complainant. (emphasis supplied)
Moreover, there have been occasions when this Court has

allowed the offended party to pursue the criminal action on his/her
own behalf, as when there is a denial of due process as in this case.76
Indeed, the right of offended parties to appeal or question an order of
the trial court which deprives them of due process has always been
recognized, the only limitation being that they cannot appeal any
adverse ruling if to do so would place the accused in double
jeopardy.77
At this juncture, We also uphold the CA’s finding that double
jeopardy does not exist in this case. Inasmuch as the dismissal of the
charges by the RTC was done without regard to due process of law,
the same is null and void.78 It is as if there was no acquittal or
dismissal of the case at all, and the same cannot constitute a claim
for double jeopardy.79
_______________
76 Ong v. Genio, G.R. No. 182336, December 23, 2009, 609 SCRA 188.
77 Merciales v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124171, March 18, 2002, 379 SCRA
345.
78 Id.
79 Id.
550

David vs. Marquez
Also, it is elementary that double jeopardy attaches only when

the following elements concur: (1) the accused is charged under a
complaint or information sufficient in form and substance to sustain
their conviction; (2) the court has jurisdiction; (3) the accused has
been arraigned and has pleaded; and (4) he/she is convicted or
acquitted, or the case is dismissed without his/her consent.80 Thus,
as found by the CA, double jeopardy does not attach in this case as
the dismissal was granted upon motion of the petitioner. To be sure,
no fundamental right of the petitioner was violated in the filing of
the petition for certiorari before the CA by the respondent, as well
as the grant thereof by the CA.
In fine, the dismissal of the cases below was patently erroneous

and as such, invalid for lack of fundamental requisite, that is, due
process.81 For this reason, this Court finds the recourse of the
respondent to the CA proper despite it being brought on her own and
not through the OSG.
Besides, such technicality cannot prevail over the more
fundamental matter, which is the violation of the right to due process
resulting from the RTC’s patent error. Nothing is more settled than
the principle that rules of procedure are meant to be tools to
facilitate a fair and orderly conduct of proceedings.82 Strict
adherence thereto must not get in the way of achieving substantial
justice.83 As long as their purpose is sufficiently met and no
violation of due process and fair play takes place, the rules should be
liberally construed.84 Liberal construction of the rules is the
controlling principle to effect substantial justice.85 The relaxation or
suspension of procedural rules, or the exemption of a case from their
operation, is warranted when compelling reasons or when the pur-
_______________
80 Id.
81 Id.
83 Id.
84 Id.
85 Id.
551
VOL. 825, JUNE 5, 2017 551

David vs. Marquez
pose of justice requires it.86 Thus, litigations should, as much as

possible, be decided on their merits and not on sheer technicalities.87
In all, since it is established that the RTC of Manila has
jurisdiction over the Illegal Recruitment and Estafa cases, and there
being no violation of the double jeopardy doctrine, the prosecution
of the case may still resume in the trial court as held by the CA.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is
DENIED. The Decision dated May 29, 2013 and Resolution dated
November 6, 2013 of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Bersamin, Reyes and Jardeleza, JJ.,

concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
Notes.—Illegal recruitment is committed by persons who,

without authority from the government, give the impression that
they have the power to send workers abroad for employment
purposes. (People vs. Rea, 698 SCRA 191 [2013])
To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that appellant gave
complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or ability
to send complainants abroad for work such that the latter were
convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. (Id.)
——o0o——
_______________
86 Id.
87 Id.
© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

David v. Marquez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

David v. Marquez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

David v. Marquez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/23/22, 12:52 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 825

G.R. No. 209859. June 5, 2017.*

EILEEN P. DAVID, petitioner, vs. GLENDA S. MARQUEZ,

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Venue; Venue in criminal cases is

VOL. 825, JUNE 5, 2017 531

532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

they cannot appeal any adverse ruling if to do so would place the

VOL. 825, JUNE 5, 2017 533

petitioner. To be sure, no fundamental right of the petitioner was

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45,

1 Rollo, pp. 3-30 with Annexes.

534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

David vs. Marquez

G.R. S.P. No. 124839, reinstating the criminal cases of Illegal

The Procedural and Factual Antecedents

In a Sinumpaang Salaysay filed before the Office of the City

VOL. 825, JUNE 5, 2017 535

On December 9, 2008, two separate Informations were filed

Criminal Case No. 08-265539

The undersigned accuses EILEEN DAVID of a violation of Article 38(a),

11 Id., at pp. 71-72.

536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Criminal Case No. 08-265540

The undersigned accuses EILEEN P. DAVID of the crime of Estafa, Art.

That on or about and during the period comprised between March 8,

The Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On December 11, 2008, warrants of arrest were issued against the

VOL. 825, JUNE 5, 2017 537

On April 15, 2009, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the

denied petitioner’s Motion to Quash, ruling that the ground relied

13 Id., at pp. 74-87.

538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Court for quashing a complaint or information.17 As to the

A criminal action arising from illegal recruitment as defined herein shall

Since complainant is a resident of Manila, the RTC ruled that the

In view of the foregoing, the Motion to Quash is hereby DENIED for

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration22 of the said Order

him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.

VOL. 825, JUNE 5, 2017 539

alleged that there is no showing that respondent is an actual resident

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the instant Motion for

540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Respondent, through the public prosecutor, then filed a Motion

Petitioner filed an Opposition36 to the said motion. Respondent,

31 Id., at pp. 122-123.

VOL. 825, JUNE 5, 2017 541

transaction actually took place in Kidapawan City, which is the basis

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion for

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Undaunted, respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari before the

542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

action in his/her name to question the decision or action of the

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The assailed

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in

VOL. 825, JUNE 5, 2017 543

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of

Hence, this Petition.

544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

independent action through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65,

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Bersamin, Reyes and Jardeleza, JJ.,