Facts:
Solemnidad M. Buaya ("Buaya") was an agent of Country Bankers Insurance Corporation (CBIC). Audit of her account revealed that she failed to remit insurance premiums amounting to Php 358,850.72. Consequently, she was charged with estafa before Branch XIX of the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC). The information against her states that, "That during the period 1980 to June 15, 1982, inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud the Country Bankers Insurance Corporation..."
Buaya filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied. Her motion for reconsideration being similarly denied, Buaya filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Petitioner
Buaya argues that the funds she allegedly embezzled were collected in Cebu City. Hence, the Manila RTC had no jurisdiction to try the case.
Issue
Whether or not the Manila RTC had jurisdiction to try the case.
Held
Yes. The information filed against Buaya alleges that the crime was committed "in the City of Manila, Philippines". Moreover, damage to CBIC, an essential element of estafa, took place in Manila.
Ratio
In the case of People v. Mission (87 Phil. 641), the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of courts in criminal cases is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information, and not by the findings the court may make after trial. In relation to this, Rule 110, Section 14 (a) of the Revised Rules of Court provides that in criminal prosecutions, the action must be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province where the offense or any of the essential elements of the same took place.
Moreover, estafa is a continuing or transitory crime which may be prosecuted in any place where any of its essential elements took place. Damage or prejudice to the offended party is an essential element of estafa. In this case, the damage or prejudice done to the CBIC took place in its principal office, which is in Manila.
Arguments of the Petitioner
Buaya argues that the funds she allegedly embezzled were collected in Cebu City. Hence, the Manila RTC had no jurisdiction to try the case.
Issue
Whether or not the Manila RTC had jurisdiction to try the case.
Held
Yes. The information filed against Buaya alleges that the crime was committed "in the City of Manila, Philippines". Moreover, damage to CBIC, an essential element of estafa, took place in Manila.
Ratio
In the case of People v. Mission (87 Phil. 641), the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of courts in criminal cases is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information, and not by the findings the court may make after trial. In relation to this, Rule 110, Section 14 (a) of the Revised Rules of Court provides that in criminal prosecutions, the action must be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province where the offense or any of the essential elements of the same took place.
Moreover, estafa is a continuing or transitory crime which may be prosecuted in any place where any of its essential elements took place. Damage or prejudice to the offended party is an essential element of estafa. In this case, the damage or prejudice done to the CBIC took place in its principal office, which is in Manila.
