761 Phil. 142
PERALTA, J.:
That on or about the 2nd day of October 2003, in the municipality of Jagna, province of Bohol, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to prejudice a juridical person, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify a commercial receipt No. 6729 of Garden Cafe, Jagna, Bohol, by making an alteration or intercalation in the said receipt No. 6729 from EIGHT HUNDRED TEN PESOS (P810.00) to ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TEN PESOS (P1,810.00) and thereafter accused used the said receipt to claim reimbursement with DKT Philippines, Inc. represented by Atty. Edgar Borje and accused as a result of which received the amount of P1,810.00 to her own benefit; to the damage and prejudice of the offended party in the amount to be proved during trial. Acts committed contrary to the provision of Article 172, No. 2, in relation to Article 171, No. 6 of the Revised Penal Code.On August 1, 2005, Navaja filed a Motion to Quash and Defer Arraignment[5] on the ground that none of the essential elements of the crime of falsification of private document occurred in Jagna, Bohol, hence, the MCTC had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case due to improper venue.
Tagbilaran City, (for Jagna, Bohol) February 10, 2005.[4]
WHEREFORE, the motion is DENIED, but considering however that accused has already submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court by filing cash bond for their respective temporary liberty, set this case for ARRAIGNMENT on November 22, 2005, at 10:00 o'clock in the morning at the Session Hall, 10th MCTC, Jagna, Bohol.Navaja filed a motion for reconsideration of the November 2, 2005 Order, but the MCTC denied it in a Resolution[7] dated January 24, 2006.
The previous Court Order setting these cases for arraignment on November 09, 2005, is hereby set aside.
SO ORDERED.[6]
The contention of the petitioner is untenable. As correctly pointed out by the MCTC, the improper venue was already resolved squarely by the Regional State Prosecutor when he held that “there are sufficient evidences (sic) indicating that the falsification took place in Jagna”.Navaja elevated the case on appeal with the CA.
This court notes that in that particular resolution, reference was made to the sworn statement of Ms. Cherly Lavaro who narrated that after she issued the receipt to Ms. Navaja, the latter borrowed her pen and in her presence wrote something on the said receipt. The Regional State Prosecutor then concluded that Ms. Lavaro's statement “describes an apparent scheme or pattern of altering receipts right after issuance. The borrowing of the cashier's pen and the use thereof must have been intended to create an impression that the receipt was prepared by the cashier herself.”
In the same affidavit, Ms. Lavaro corroborated the affidavit of another witness, which categorically states that Ms. Navaja was in Jagna when the questioned receipt was issued.
If the court were to follow the logic of the petition, her claim that her request for reimbursement was made in Cebu City not in Jagna, Bohol, would likewise give no showing or indication that the falsification was done in Cebu City. In other words, the said contention would necessarily result in a “neither here no there” situation.[10]
I. THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF JAGNA, BOHOL[,] DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE INSTANT CRIMINAL CASE.The petition lacks merit.i. Not one of the essential elements of the alleged crime of falsification of a private document was committed in Jagna, Bohol.II. HEREIN PETITIONER PROPERLY AVAILED OF THE REMEDY OF FILING A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN QUESTIONING IMPROPER VENUE IN THE INSTANT CASE.
ii. Venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional and cannot be presumed or established from the alleged acts of the petitioner on a totally different and unrelated time and occasion.
iii. The strict rules on venue in criminal cases were established for the protection of the rights of the accused and to prevent undue harassment and oppression.
III. SETTLED LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE CLEARLY PERMITS THE FILING OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO QUESTION THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO QUASH.[11]
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.[15]In determining the venue where the criminal action is to be instituted and the court which has jurisdiction over it, Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
(a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court or municipality or territory where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred.Section 10, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure pertinently states:
Place of commission of the offense. – The complaint or information is sufficient if it can be understood from its allegations that the offense was committed or some of its essential ingredients occurred at some place within the jurisdiction of the court, unless the particular place where it was committed constitutes an essential element of the offense charged or is necessary for its identification.In Union Bank of the Philippines v. People,[16] the Court said that both provisions categorically place the venue and jurisdiction over criminal cases not only in the court where the offense was committed, but also where any of its essential ingredients took place. In other words, the venue of action and of jurisdiction are deemed sufficiently alleged where the Information states that the offense was committed or some of its essential ingredients occurred at a place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
That on or about the 2nd day of October 2003, in the municipality of Jagna, province of Bohol, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to prejudice a juridical person, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify a commercial receipt No. 6729 of Garden Cafe, Jagna, Bohol, by making an alteration or intercalation in the said receipt No. 6729 from EIGHT HUNDRED TEN PESOS (P810.00) to ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TEN PESOS (P1,810.00) and thereafter accused used the said receipt to claim reimbursement with DKT Philippines, Inc. represented by Atty. Edgar Borje and accused as a result of which received the amount of P1,810.00 to her own benefit; to the damage and prejudice of the offended party in the amount to be proved during trial. xxx[18]Likewise, the Complaint-Affidavit dated February 18, 2004 alleged that the she committed the said crime in Jagna, Bohol, viz:
“4. Among the expenses she reimbursed from DKT is the amount of Php1,810.00 she supposedly incurred at Garden's Cafe, Jagna branch. Photocopy of the receipt dated 02 October 2003 she sent to the DKT office in Metro Manila is hereto attached as Annex “C”.Guided by the settled rule that the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information and not by the result of proof[20], the Court holds that Navaja's case for falsification of private document falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the MCTC of Jagna, Bohol.
5. However, upon recent field investigation of Navaja's expenses in Bohol, it was found that the actual amount she incurred at Garden's (sic) Cafe is only Php810.00 Photocopy of the duplicate original official receipt (pink copy) certified true and correct by the cashier of Garden's Cafe, Jagna is hereto attached as Annex “D”.
6. Evidently, Navaja falsified the receipt in Bohol upon receiving it with the intent of causing damage to DKT.”[19]
A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court should cover only questions of law. Questions of fact are not reviewable. A question of law exists when the doubt centers on what the law is on a certain set of facts. A question of fact exists when the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.Whether the crime of falsification of private document was committed in Jagna, Bohol or in Cebu City, is a question of fact. Indeed, in the exercise of its power of review, the Court is not a trier of facts and, subject to certain exceptions, it does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the parties during trial.[26] In certain exceptional cases, however, the Court may be urged to probe and resolve factual issues, viz:
There is a question of law if the issue raised is capable of being resolved without need of reviewing the probative value of the evidence. The issue to be resolved must be limited to determining what the law is on a certain set of facts. Once the issue invites a review of the evidence, the question posed is one of fact.
(a) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures;Navaja failed to show that any of these circumstances is present.
(b) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;
(c) When there is grave abuse of discretion;
(d) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
(e) When the findings of facts are conflicting;
(f) When in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;
(g) When the CA’s findings are contrary to those by the trial court;
(h) When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;
(i) When the facts set forth in the petition, as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs, are not disputed by the respondent;
(j) When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or
(k) When the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[27]
This court notes that in that particular resolution, reference was made to the sworn statement of Ms. Cherly Lavaro who narrated that after she issued the receipt to Ms. Navaja, the latter borrowed her pen and in her presence wrote something on the said receipt. The Regional State Prosecutor then concluded that Ms. Lavaro's statement “describes an apparent scheme or pattern of altering receipts right after issuance. The borrowing of the cashier's pen and the use thereof must have been intended to create an impression that the receipt was prepared by the cashier herself.”On Navaja's argument that the CA's reliance on Labarro's[31] aforesaid statement in upholding the venue of the case violates Section 34, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court,[32] the Court holds that such evidentiary rule has no bearing in determining the place where the crime was committed for purposes of filing a criminal information which merely requires the existence of probable cause. In Fenequito v. Vergara, Jr.,[33] the Court expounded on the concept of probable cause in this wise:
In the same affidavit, Ms. Lavaro corroborated the affidavit of another witness, which categorically states that Ms. Navaja was in Jagna when the questioned receipt was issued.
If the court were to follow the logic of the petition, her claim that her request for reimbursement was made in Cebu City not in Jagna, Bohol, would likewise give no showing or indication that the falsification was done in Cebu City. In other words, the said contention would necessarily result in a “neither here no there” situation.[30]
Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information, has been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof. The term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged.Also, Navaja insists that the rule on venue should have been construed liberally in favor her favor as the accused, and strictly against private respondent, given its purpose of preventing harassment and inconvenience by compelling the accused to appear in a different court from that of the province where the crime was committed. Yet, private respondent willfully chose to prosecute separately the other cases for falsification of private document against her in different jurisdictions, namely, Cebu City, Bacolod City, Iloilo City and Tagbilaran, Bohol, to harass and drain her financial resources, when all these criminal cases, involving minimal amounts of actual damages,[35] should have been filed in one (1) criminal jurisdiction to avoid multiplicity of actions.
A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed by the suspects. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, not on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. In determining probable cause, the average man weighs facts and circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of which he has no technical knowledge. He relies on common sense. What is determined is whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It does not require an inquiry as to whether there is sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.[34]
The petitioner's insistence that all the criminal complaints filed against her should be filed in one jurisdiction would be a blatant violation of the law on jurisdiction as one cannot file a criminal case other than where the offense was allegedly committed.To stress, in criminal proceedings, improper venue is lack of jurisdiction because venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction.[37] Unlike in a civil case where venue may be waived, this could not be done in a criminal case because it is an element of jurisdiction. Thus, one cannot be held to answer for any crime committed by him except in the jurisdiction where it was committed. Be that as it may, Section 5 (4), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides that the Court has the power to order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, where there are serious and weighty reasons present, which would prevent the court of original jurisdiction from conducting a fair and impartial trial, the Court has been mandated to order a change of venue so as to prevent a miscarriage of justice.[38] That private respondent filed several criminal cases for falsification in different jurisdictions, which unduly forced Navaja to spend scarce resources to defend herself in faraway places can hardly be considered as compelling reason which would prevent the MCTC from conducting a fair and impartial trial.
In short, if it so happens that several offenses are alleged to have been committed in different venues, then it is just unfortunate that whatever complaints have to be filed, will have to filed in those different venues. To do otherwise would be procedurally fatal.[36]
In Zamoranos v. People, this Court emphasized that “a special civil action for certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash an information. The established rule is that, when such an adverse interlocutory order is rendered, the remedy is not to resort forthwith to certiorari, but to continue with the case in due course and, when an unfavorable verdict is handed down, to take an appeal in the manner authorized by law.”On a number of occasions, however, Court had sanctioned a writ of certiorari as an appropriate remedy to assail an interlocutory order in the following circumstances:
(1) when the court issued the order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion;As can be gleaned from the Court's discussion on the substantive issue of the case, Navaja failed to prove that any of the said special circumstances obtains in this case, let alone the grave abuse of discretion she imputed against the MCTC. Hence, the CA did not err in affirming the RTC ruling that the MCTC correctly denied her motion to quash.
(2) when the interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief;
(3) in the interest of a more enlightened and substantial justice;
(4) to promote public welfare and public policy; and
(5) when the cases have attracted nationwide attention, making it essential to proceed with dispatch in the consideration thereof.[43]