This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2010-08-03 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| It must be clarified though that not all defects in an information are curable by amendment prior to entry of plea. An information which is void ab initio cannot be amended to obviate a ground for quashal.[51] An amendment which operates to vest jurisdiction upon the trial court is likewise impermissible.[52] | |||||
|
2010-05-05 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| By Order of October 3, 2006,[18] the public respondent, albeit finding that probable cause existed, quashed the Information, citing Agustin v. Pamintuan.[19] It found that the Information lacked any allegations that the offended parties were actually residing in Makati at the time of the commission of the offense as in fact they listed their address in the complaint-affidavit at Yuchengco Tower in Binondo, Manila; or that the alleged libelous article was printed and first published in Makati. | |||||
|
2009-10-09 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Agustin v. Pamintuan,[19] which also involved a libel case filed by a private individual, the Acting General Manager of the Baguio Country Club, with the RTC of Baguio City where the Information therein alleged that the libelous article was "published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Baguio and the entire Philippines," the Court did not consider the Information sufficient to show that Baguio City was the venue of the printing and first publication of the alleged libelous article. | |||||
|
2007-02-06 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Most telling of the recent precedents is Agustin v. Pamintuan,[9] which involved a criminal action for libel filed by a private person, the acting general manager of the Baguio Country Club, with the RTC of Baguio City. The relevant portion of the Information is quoted below:That on or about the 17th day of March 2000, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent and malicious intent and evil motive of attacking, injuring and impeaching the character, honesty, integrity, virtue and reputation of one Anthony De Leon the acting general manager of the Baguio Country Club, and as a private citizen of good standing and reputation in the community and with malicious intent of exposing the (sic) Anthony De Leon to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, discredit and dishonor, without any justifiable motive, did then and there willfully, maliciously and criminally prepare or cause to prepare, write in his column "Cocktails" and publish in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Baguio and in the entire Philippines x x x.[10] (Emphasis supplied.) The phrase "the Philippine Daily Inquirer, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Baguio and in the entire Philippines" bears obvious similarity to the reference in the Information in this case to the publication involved as "'Smart File,' a magazine of general circulation in Manila," and both private complainants in Agustin and the case at bar were private citizens at the time of the filing of the complaint. Yet the Court in Agustin ruled that the failure to allege that Baguio was the venue of printing and first publication, or that the complainant therein was a resident of Baguio, constituted a substantial defect that could not even be cured by mere amendment. The rules on venue as laid down in Agbayani were restated in Agustin,[11] retaining no distinction as to venue whether the offended party is a public official or a private person. In fact, the Court considered the phrase "a newspaper of general circulation in the city of Baguio" as so utterly incapable of establishing Baguio as venue that the bulk of the discussion instead centered on whether the allegation that the complainant was the acting general manager of the Baguio Country Club sufficiently established that he was a resident of Baguio City. On that point, the Court ruled that it did not. | |||||
|
2006-12-05 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Not all defects in an information can be cured by amendment, however. In Agustin v. Pamintuan,[25] this Court held that the absence of any allegation in the information that the therein offended party was actually residing in Baguio City at the time of the commission of the alleged offense or that the alleged libelous articles were printed and first published in Baguio City is a substantial defect, which cannot be amended after the accused enters his plea.[26] Amendments of the information to vest jurisdiction upon a court is not permissible.[27] | |||||
|
2005-11-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Makati for that matter. Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction.[36] Citing Uy vs. Court of Appeals,[37] we held in the fairly recent case of Macasaet vs. People[38] that: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.[39] (Emphasis supplied) Where life or liberty is affected by its proceedings, the court must keep strictly within the limits of the law authorizing it to take jurisdiction and to try the case and to render judgment.[40] | |||||