ISIP VS PEOPLEFACTSPetitioner Manuel Isip (and his wife Marietta) was convicted of Estafa before the RTC of Cavite City. Marites, however, died during the pendency of the appeal before the CA. The spouses were engaged in the buying and selling of pledged and unredeemed jewelry pawned by gambling habitués. However, in their dealings with Complainant Atty. Leonardo Jose, they failed to account for the jewelries given to them to be sold on commission. Also, certain checks they’ve issued in favor of Jose bounced. Procedurally, petitioner contends that the RTC of Cavite has no jurisdiction over the case since the elements of the crime did not occur there. Instead, he argues that the case should have been filed in Manila where their supposed transactions took place.ISSUE:Whether the RTC of Cavite has jurisdiction over the case.RULING: YES. The concept of venue of actions in criminal cases, unlike in civil cases, is jurisdictional. 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. 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 shows that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction. Complainant had sufficiently shown that the transaction covered by the case took place in his ancestral home in Cavite City when he was on approved leave of absence from the Bureau of Customs. Since it has been shown that venue was properly laid, it is now petitioner's task to prove otherwise, since he claims that the transaction was entered into in Manila. He who alleges must prove his allegations apply. Here, petitioner failed to prove that the transaction happened in Manila. He argues that since he and his late wife actually

resided in Manila, convenience suggests that the transaction was entered there. The Court wasn’t persuaded. The fact that Cavite is a bit far from Manila doesn’t necessarily mean that the transaction cannot or did not happen there. Distance will not prevent any person from going to a distant place where he can procure goods that he can sell so that he can earn a living. It is not improbable or impossible them to have gone, not once, but twice in one day, to Cavite if that is the number of times they received pieces of jewelry from complainant. Also, the fact that the checks issued were drawn against accounts with banks in Manila or Makati doesn’t mean that the transactions were not entered into in Cavite City. When it comes to credibility, the trial court’s assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence.2. LANDBANK of the PHILIPPINES v BELISTAFACTSBelista is the owner of 8 parcels of land placed by the Dept. of Agrarian Reform (DAR) under theComprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (PD No. 27 &EO No. 228). He and DAR/LBP disagreed on the amount of just compensation he deserved, which caused him to file a Petition for Valuation and Payment of Just Compensation before the DARAB-Regional Adjudicator for Region V (RARAD-V). The RARAD-V decided in his favor. Aggrieved, LBP filed an original Petition for Determination of Just Compensation at the same sala of the RTC sitting as SAC. It was dismissed on the ground of failure to exhaust administrative remedies.ISSUEWhether it is necessary that in cases involving claims for just compensation under RA No. 6657 that the decision of the Adjudicator must first be appealed to the DARAB before a party can resort to the RTC sitting as SAC.RULINGSections 50 and 57 of RA No. 6657 provide: Section 50. Quasi-judicial Powers of the DAR. – TheDAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the

exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources(DENR) x section 57. Special Jurisdiction. – The Special Agrarian Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction overall petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners, and the prosecution of all criminal offenses under this Act. x clearly, under Section 50, DAR has primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the DA and the DENR. Further exception to the DAR's original and exclusive jurisdiction are all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners and the prosecution of all criminal offenses under RANo. 6657, which are within the jurisdiction of the RTC sitting as a SAC. Thus, jurisdiction on just compensation cases for the taking of lands under RANo. 6657 is vested in the courts. Here, the trial court properly acquired jurisdiction over Wycoco’s complaint for determination of just compensation. It must be stressed that although no summary administrative proceeding was held before the DARAB, LBP was able to perform its legal mandate of initially determining the value of Wicca’s land pursuant to Executive Order No. 405, Series of 1990.In accordance with settled principles of administrative law, primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR to determine in aPreliminaryManner the just compensation for the lands taken under the agrarian reform program, but such determination is subject to challenge before the courts. The resolution of just compensation cases for the taking of lands under agrarian reform is, after all, essentially a judicial function.B. JURISDICTION TO ISSUE HOLDDEPARTURE ORDERS1. MONDEJAR v BUBANFACTS:Mondejar seeks to hold Judge Buban of the Tacloban City MTCC administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law, partiality, serious irregularity and grave misconduct, in relation to a BP 22 case against Mondejar. Judge Buban allegedly issued a “hold departure order” against her, in violation of SC Circular No. 39-97, which says that “hold

departure orders”may only be issued in criminal cases within theexclusive jurisdiction of the RTC. She also claims that said order was issued without giving her an opportunity to be heard. The judge responded, stating that he was only made aware of said order when he instructed his staff to secure a copy from the Executive Judge of the RTC of Taliban. After which, he immediately issued an order setting aside and lifting the “hold departure order”. As regards the supposed due process, he sent a notice of hearing to her and her counsel, but neither appeared. Court Administrator recommended a severe reprimand with a stern warning that should it happen again, he would be dealt with more severely.ISSUE:W/N the judge is administratively liable?HELD: YES. The judge is administratively liable. Circular No. 39-97 limits the authority to issue hold-departure orders to criminal cases within the jurisdiction of second level courts. Paragraph No. 1 of the said circular specifically provides that “hold-departure orders shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regional trial courts.” Clearly then, criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of first level courts do not fall within the ambit of the circular, and it was an error on the part of respondent judge to have issued one in the instant case.C. JURISDICTION DETERMINED BY ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT1. FOZ v PEOPLEFacts:Vicente Foz (columnist) and Danny Fajardo (editor-publisher) of Panay News were charged with libel for writing and publishing an article against Dr. Edgar Portigo1.The RTC found them guilty as charged which1 That a certain Lita Payunan consulted with Dr. Portigo\ that she had rectum momma and had to undergo an operation. Even after surgery she still experienced difficulty in urinating and defecating. On her 2Ndoperation, she woke to find that her anus and vagina were closed and hole with a catheter punched on her right side.\ she found out she had cancer.\ they spent

P150,000 for wrong diagnosis ate agrarian reform matters and was affirmed by the CA hence this petition for review. Foz and Fajardo raised for the first time that the information charging them with libel did not contain allegations sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the RTC of Iloilo City.Issue:W/N the RTC of Iloilo had jurisdiction over the offenseHeld:NO Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction. The offense should have been committed or any one of its essential elements took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The jurisdiction of the court is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. The rules on venue for written defamation are as follows:1.When offended party is a public official or private person = filed in RTC of province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published2.When offended party is a private individual =filed in RTC of province where he actually resided at the time of commission of offense3.When offended party is a public officer whose office is in Manila = filed in RTC of Manila4.When offended party is a public officer holding office outside Manila = filed in RTC of province or city where he held office at the time of commission of the offense Dr. Portigo is a private individual at the time of thepublication of the libelous article, the venue may bethe RTC of the province/city where the libelous articlewas printed and first published OR where he actuallyresided at the time of the commission of the offense. The Information [relevant to REM] states only that “x xx both the accused as columnists and editor-publisher, respectively of Panay News, a daily publication with considerable circulation in the City of Iloilo and throughout the region x”. Such did not establish that the said publication was printed and published in Iloilo City. As cited in 2 other cases, the SC held that if it would be held that the information sufficiently vests jurisdiction on the allegation that the publication was in general circulation in [place where case is filed], there would be no impediment to the filing of the libel action in other location

where the publication is in general circulation. Such was not the intent of RA 4363.On residence – the information failed to allege the residence of Dr. Portigo. While the information alleges that “Dr. Portigo is a physician and medical practitioner in Iloilo City”, it did not clearly and positively indicate that he was actually residing in Iloilo City at the time of the commission of the offense. It was possible that he was actually residing in another place. Residence of a person is his personal, actual or physical habitation or his actual residence or place of abode provided he resides therein with continuity and consistency; no particular length of time is required. Residence must be more than temporary.

D. JURISDICTION OF SANDIGANBAYAN1. PEOPLE v SANDIGANBAYANFACTS:Victoria Amante was a member of theSangguniang Panlungsod Of Toledo City, Province of Cebu at the time pertinent to this case. On January 14, 1994, she was able to get hold of a cash advance in the amount of P71,095.00 under a disbursement voucher in order to defray seminar expenses of the Committee on Health and Environmental Protection, which she headed. As of December 19, 1995, or after almost two years since she obtained the said cash advance, no liquidation was made. Commission on Audit sent a report to Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, which then issued a resolution recommending the filing of Information for violating the Auditing Code of the Philippines against respondent Amante. The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), upon review of the OMB-Visayas' Resolution, on April 6, 2001, prepared a memorandum finding probable cause to indict respondent Amante. The OSP filed Information with the Sandiganbayan accusing Victoria Amante of violating Section 89 of P.D.No. 1445 alleging that “with deliberate intent and intent to gain, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally fail to liquidate said cash advances of P71,095.00.” The OSP filed an Information with the Sandiganbayan accusing Victoria Amante of violating Section 89 of P.D. No. 1445,Amante countered by saying amongst others that Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the said criminal case because respondent Amante was then local

official who was occupying a position of salary grade 26, whereas Section 4 of Republic Act (R.A.) No.8249 provides that the Sandiganbayan shall have original jurisdiction only in cases where the accused holds a position otherwise classified as Grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989, R.A. No. 6758.ISSUE:Whether or not a member of theSangguniang Panlungsod Under Salary Grade 26 who was charged with violation of The Auditing Code of the Philippines falls within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.RULING: The applicable law in this case is Section 4 of P.D. No.1606, as amended by Section 2 of R.A. No. 7975 which took effect on May 16, 1995, which was again amended on February 5, 1997 by R.A. No. 8249. The alleged commission of the offense, as shown in the Information was on or about December 19, 1995 and the filing of the Information was on May 21, 2004. The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is to be determined at the time of the institution of the action, not at the time of the commission of the offense. The exception contained in R.A. 7975, as well as R.A. 8249,where it expressly provides that to determine the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan in cases involving violations of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, R.A. No. 1379,and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable in the present case as the offense involved herein is a violation of The Auditing Code of the Philippines. The last clause of the opening sentence of paragraph (a) of the said two provisions states:Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. -- The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving: A. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, other known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity,At the time of the commission of the offense The present case falls under Section 4(b) where other offenses and felonies

Committed by public officials or employees in relation to their office are involved.Under the said provision, no exception is contained. Thus, the general rule that jurisdiction of court to try a criminal case is to be determined at the time of the institution of the action, not at the time of the commission of the offense applies in this present case. Since the present case was instituted on May 21,2004, the provisions of R.A. No. 8249 shall govern.This Court had ruled that as long as the offense charged in the information is intimately connected with the office and is alleged to have been perpetrated while the accused was in the performance, though improper or irregular, of his official functions, there being no personal motive to commit the crime and had the accused not have committed it had he not held the aforesaid office, the accused is held to have been indicted for "an offense committed in relation" to his office.Note also that: Those that are classified as Grade 26 and below may still fall within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan provided that they hold the positions thus enumerated by R.A. No. 3019. Particularly and exclusively enumerated are provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial department heads; city mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers , and other city department heads; officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position as consul and higher; Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank; PNP chief superintendent and PNP officers of higher rank; City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor; and presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations. In connection therewith, Section 4(b) of the same law provides that other offenses or felonies committed by public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a) in relation to their office also fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

2. SERRANA v SANDIGANBAYANFacts:Serana was a senior student and a government scholar of UP-Cebu. She was appointed by then President Estrada as a student regent of UP, to serve a one-year term. She discussed with President Estrada the renovation of Vinson’s Hall Annex in UP Diliman. With her siblings and relatives, Serana registered with the SEC the Office of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc. (OSRFI). One of the projects of the OSRFI was the renovation of the Vinson’s Hall Annex. President Estrada gave P15M to the OSRFI as financial assistance for the proposed renovation. The source of the funds, according to the information, was the Office of the President .However, the renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex failed to materialize. Hence, the succeeding student regent, filed a complaint for Malversation of Public Funds and Property with the Office of the Ombudsman. And the Ombudsman, after due investigation, found probable cause to indict Serana and her brother for estafa. Serana moved to quash the information. She claimed that the Sandiganbayan does not have any jurisdiction over the offense charged or over her person, in her capacity as UP student regent.Issue: Whether Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction to try government scholar and a student regent, along wither brother (a private individual), of swindling government funds? YESRatio:1. The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is set by P.D. No. 1606, as amended, not by R.A. No.3019, as amended.Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. - The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving: A. xxx (1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade "27" and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 989(Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including: xxx " (g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations.2. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offense of estafa.Section 4(B) of P.D. No. 1606 reads’. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by

the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a of this section in relation to their office. The jurisdiction is simply subject to the twin requirements that (a) the offense is committed by public officials and employees and that (b) the offense is committed in relation to their office. Plainly, estafa is one of those other felonies.3. Petitioner UP student regent is a public officer.Petitioner claims that she is not a public officer with Salary Grade 27; she is, in fact, a regular tuition fee-paying student. This is likewise bereft of merit. It is not only the salary grade that determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan also has jurisdiction over other officers enumerated in P.D. No.1606.While the first part of Section 4(A) covers only officials with Salary Grade 27 and higher, its second part specifically includes other executive officials whose positions may not be of Salary Grade 27 and higher but who are by express provision of law placed under the jurisdiction of the said court. Petitioner falls under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as she is placed there by express provision of law. As the Sandiganbayan pointed out, the BOR performs functions similar to those of a board of trustees of anon-stock Corporation. Moreover, it is well established that compensation is not an essential element of public office. At most, it is merely incidental to the public office.4. The offense charged was committed in relation to public office, according to the Information.It is axiomatic that jurisdiction is determined by the averments in the information. In the case at bench, the information alleged, in no uncertain terms that petitioner, being then a student regent of U.P., "while in the performance of her official functions, committing the offense in relation to her office and taking advantage of her position, with intent to gain…”3. ESQUIVEL vSANDIGANBAYAN(borrowed from C) FACTS:PO2 Eduardo and SPO1 Catacutan are assigned to the Regional Intelligence and Investigation Division of San Fernando Pampanga. They filed their complaint-affidavits with the CIDG against petitioners

AntonioEsquivel (the municipal mayor Jaen, Nueva Ecija) and his brother Eboy Esquivel. They crimes complained of were illegal arrest, arbitrary detention, maltreatment, attempted murder and grave threats. Several other police officers were accused with the Esquivels. The initial investigation showed that on March1998, Eduardo was in his parents’ house, about to eat lunch when Equivels arrived with other police officers. They disarmed Eduardo and forced him to board their vehicle and brought him to the municipal hall. On the way, Mayor Esquivel mauled him and threatened to kill him while pointing a gun at Eduardo. Upon arrival at the town hall, Mayor Esquivel ordered a certain SPO1 Espiritu to kill Eduardo butSPO1 Catacutan arrived to verify what happened to Eduardo. The mayor threatened him as well. The mayor continued to harass, threaten and inflict physical injuries upon Eduardo until he lost consciousness. When he woke up, he was released button before he signed a statement in a police blotter that he was in good physical condition. The alleged motive for this was because the mayor believed Eduardo and Catacutan were among the law enforcers who raided a jueteng den connected to the mayor. After investigation, the CIDG forwarded the findings to the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, which conducted a preliminary investigation and required the submission of counter-affidavits. In their counter-affidavits, the Esquivels allege that Eduardo was actually a fugitive with a warrant of arrest for malversation and they just confiscated his gun for illegal possession.In June 1998, the Deputy Ombudsman issued a resolution recommending that both Esquivels be indicted for less serious physical injuries and grave threats. As to the charges against other petitioners, they were dismissed. Then Ombudsman Desierto approved this. So, the separate informations were filed against the Esquivels in the Sandiganbayan. Accused filed an MR but this was denied. Esquivels were arraigned, pleaded not guilty. With the denial of their MR, they elevate the matter to the SC alleging GADLEJ in the issuance of the resolution of the deputy ombudsman. Petitioners theorize that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over their persons as they hold positions excluded in Republic Act No.

7975. As the positions of municipal mayors andBarangay Captains are not mentioned therein, they claim they are not covered by said law under the principle of Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.ISSUE:W/N the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the cases against both Mayor Esquivel and Eboy Esquivel.HELD/RATIO: Yes, Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. Esquivels are wrong!Petitioners’ claim lacks merit. InRodrigo, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan,Binary vs. Sandiganbayan, andLayus vs. Sandiganbayan, we already held that municipal mayors fall under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Nor canBarangay Captain Mark Anthony Esquivel claim that since he is not a municipal mayor, he is outside the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. R.A. 7975, as amended by R.A. No. 8249, provides that it is only in cases where "none of the accused(underscoring supplied) are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade ‘27’ or higher" that “exclusive original jurisdiction shall be vested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pampanga Blog. 129, as amended." Note that under the 1991 Local Government Code, Mayor Esquivel has a salary grade of 27. SinceBarangay Captain Esquivel is the co-accused in Criminal Case No. 24777 of Mayor Esquivel,whose position falls under salary grade 27, theSandiganbayan committed no grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction over said criminalcase, as well as over Criminal Case No. 24778,involving both of them. Hence, the writ of certioraricannot issue in petitioners’ favor.