#9

CABRAL v.  BRACAMONTE

G.R. No. 233174 | January 23, 2019

DOCTRINE: The Court has ruled that "in criminal cases, venue or where at least one of the
elements of the crime or offense was committed must be proven and not just alleged.
Otherwise, a mere allegation is not proof and could not justify sentencing a man to jail or
holding him criminally liable.”

FACTS:
On September 15, 2009, respondent Chris S. Bracamonte and petitioner Ruel Francis
Cabral executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in Makati City for the purchase of shares of
stock in Wellcross Freight Corporation (WFC) and Aviver International Corporation (AVIVER).
Simultaneous with the signing of the MOA, Bracamonte issued a postdated check to Cabral in the
amount of P12,677,950.15. When the check was presented for payment, however, the drawee
bank in Makati City dishonored the same for lack of sufficient funds. Consequently, for failure to
settle the obligation, Cabral instituted a complaint for estafa against Bracamonte in Parañaque
City. Finding probable cause, the prosecutor filed with the RTC of Parañaque City an Information.
After arraignment and presentation of prosecution evidence, Bracamonte moved to quash
the Information contending that the venue was improperly laid in Parañaque City, because
the postdated check was delivered and dishonored in Makati City. In contrast, Cabral
maintained that the averments in the complaint and Information are controlling to determine
jurisdiction. Since the complaint affidavit alleged that negotiations on the MOA were conducted in
a warehouse in Parañaque City where Cabral was convinced to sell his shares in the two
corporations, then the RTC of Parañaque City properly had jurisdiction.

RTC Decision
RTC denied the Motion to Quash explaining that it has jurisdiction over the case because
Bracamonte employed fraudulent acts against Cabral in Parañaque City prior to the issuance of
the postdated check. According to the RTC, a perusal of the Information would show that Cabral
was defrauded by Bracamonte in the City of Parañaque. Also, in paragraph 7 of the complaint
affidavit, Cabral narrated that it was during their meeting in the old warehouse of AVIVER and
WFC located at Km. 17, West Service Road, South Super Highway, Parañaque City that
Bracamonte was able to persuade and convince him to sell his entire shares of stock. There, they
triumphed in misleading and fooling him until he finally accepted their offer. The RTC held that
fundamental is the 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. Moreover, jurisdiction of said courts is determined by
the allegations in the complaint or information. Thus, since the complaint affidavit and the
Information in the instant case duly alleged that Bracamonte deceived Cabral in Parañaque City,
the Parañaque RTC appropriately had jurisdiction over the instant case.

CA Decision
The CA set aside the RTC Order and dismissed the Information against Bracamonte.
According to the appellate court, in determining the proper venue, the following acts must be
considered as the following were actually proven by the evidence on record: (a) Cabral and
Bracamonte executed the MOA in Makati City; (b) Bracamonte issued and delivered a postdated
check to Cabral in Makati City simultaneous to the signing of the agreement; and (c) the check
was presented for payment and was dishonored in Makati City. Applying the elements of estafa, it
is clear that deceit took place in Makati City where the worthless check was issued and delivered,
while damage was inflicted at the same place where the check was dishonored by the drawee
bank. Thus, jurisdiction solely lies in Makati City where all the elements of the crime occurred.
--
In his petition before the SC, Cabral asserted that since the crime of estafa is a continuing or
transitory offense which may be prosecuted at the place where any of the essential elements of
the crime took place, its basic elements of deceit and damage may arise independently in
separate places. As in this case, since the allegations in the complaint clearly indicate that the
business transactions, with regard to the terms and conditions of the subject MOA, were
conducted in a warehouse in Parañaque City, the RTC of Parañaque City correctly denied
Bracamonte's Motion to Quash as it unmistakably had jurisdiction over the case.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not petitioner Cabral had legal standing.

2. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred when it held that the trial court is devoid of
jurisdiction to try the criminal case against Bracamonte as venue was improperly laid.

HELD:

1. NO. The Court has held that "the authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal
cases before the Supreme Court and the CA is solely vested in the Office of the Solicitor
General." Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code explicitly
provides that the OSG shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and
instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter
requiring the services of lawyers. In the case at bar, the petition before the Court essentially
assailed the criminal, and not only the civil, aspect of the CA Decision. Thus, the petition should
have been filed only by the State through the OSG and not by Cabral who lacked the personality
or legal standing to question the CA Decision as per the aforementioned law.

2. NO. The Court has held that "territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the
court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of or to try the offense allegedly committed therein by the
accused. In all criminal prosecutions, the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the
municipality or territory wherein the offense was committed or where any one of the essential
ingredients took place."Otherwise stated, the place where the crime was committed determines
not only the venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction. Thus, a court cannot
take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense allegedly committed outside of its limited
territory. In this relation, moreover, it has been held that the jurisdiction of a court over the criminal
case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. Once it is so shown, the
court may validly take cognizance of the case. However, if the evidence adduced during
the trial shows that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss
the action for want of jurisdiction. In the present petition, Cabral insisted that since he alleged
in his complaint affidavit that the business transactions with regard to the terms and conditions of
the subject MOA were conducted in a warehouse in Parañaque City, the element of deceit
definitely occurred therein, and as such, the RTC of Parañaque City has jurisdiction over the case.
This does not hold water for he did not present any evidence, testimonial or documentary, that
would support or corroborate the assertion. The RTC also failed to substantiate its ruling which
simply denied Bracamonte's Motion to Quash on the basis of the express statement in the
complaint affidavit of Cabral narrating that it was during their meeting in the old warehouse of
AVIVER and WFC located at Km. 17, West Service Road, South Super Highway, Parañaque City
that Bracamonte was able to persuade and convince him to sell his entire shares of stock. Thus,
while Cabral was not wrong in saying that the crime of estafa is a continuing or transitory offense
and may be prosecuted at the place where any of the essential ingredients of the crime took
place, the pieces of evidence on record as found out by the CA pointed only to one place: Makati
City (refer to the findings/ruling of the CA). To stress, an allegation is not evidence and could not
be made equivalent to proof. In a criminal case, the prosecution must not only prove that the
offense was committed, it must also prove the identity of the accused and the fact that the offense
was committed within the jurisdiction of the court. There being no showing that the offense was
committed within Parañaque City, the CA correctly ruled that the RTC of that city had no
jurisdiction over the case.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated
March 27, 2017 and Resolution dated July 28, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
146746 are AFFIRMED. The Information in Criminal Case No. 11-0664 is DISMISSED without
prejudice.