Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALLEN A. MACASAET v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	AM No. RTJ-07-2076 2010-10-12	OCA v. JUDGE ALBERTO L. LERMA PER CURIAM
In criminal actions, it is a fundamental rule that venue is jurisdictional. 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 exercise jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense committed outside the limited territory. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information.[15]
	GR No. 184800 2010-05-05	WONINA M. BONIFACIO v. RTC OF MAKATI CARPIO MORALES, J.
Citing Macasaet v. People,[17] petitioners maintained that the Information failed to allege a particular place within the trial court's jurisdiction where the subject article was printed and first published or that the offended parties resided in Makati at the time the alleged defamatory material was printed and first published.
	GR No. 167764 2009-10-09	VICENTE FOZ v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction. The Court held in Macasaet v. People[12] 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. (Emphasis supplied.)[13]
	GR No. 176084 2008-04-30	CARMENCITA G. CARIÑO v. MERLIN DE CASTRO YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
In criminal proceedings on appeal in the Court of Appeals or in the Supreme Court, the authority to represent the People is vested solely in the Solicitor General. Under Presidential Decree No. 478, among the specific powers and functions of the OSG was to "represent the government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings." This provision has been carried over to the Revised Administrative Code particularly in Book IV, Title III, Chapter 12 thereof.[12] Without doubt, the OSG is the appellate counsel of the People of the Philippines in all criminal cases.[13]
	GR NO. 170298 2007-06-26	MANUEL S. ISIP v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The concept of venue of actions in criminal cases, unlike in civil cases, is jurisdictional.[14] The place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction.[15] 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. 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 shows that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.[16]
	GR No. 157370 2007-06-08	RAMIL P. ORTIZ v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Nevertheless, it should be stated that the CA did not commit any grave abuse of discretion. The discussion of the issues in its Resolutions precludes any finding that it ignored petitioner's arguments or evidence. Moreover, petitioner should be reminded that the jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information.[7] In Macasaet v. People,[8] the Court clarified that: x x x as to the venue of the criminal action for written defamation, the complaint or information should contain allegations as to whether, at the time the offense was committed, the offended party was a public officer or a private individual and where he was actually residing at that time. (Emphasis supplied) In this case, the Amended Information filed with the RTC clearly alleged that the offended party was "then residing at this City [Manila]." Such allegation is sufficient to comply with the requirement set forth in the afore-quoted case and to vest jurisdiction in the RTC of Manila.
	GR No. 125813 2007-02-06	FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ v. CA TINGA, J.
In Macasaet v. People,[12] the complainant was again a private person.[13] The Information for libel against a gossip columnist and the editors of the tabloid which published the column was filed with the RTC of Quezon City, but it failed to state at all where the tabloid was printed and first published, or where the complainant resided. Even as evidence was presented during trial that complainant was a resident of Quezon City, the Court ultimately held that the allegations contained in the Information "[were] utterly insufficient to vest jurisdiction on the RTC of Quezon City."[14] Again, the rules laid down in Agbayani were cited as controlling.[15] The Court further held that the evidence establishing the complainant's place of residence as Quezon City could not cure the defect of the Information, noting that "it is settled that jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information."[16]
	GR No. 143647 2005-11-11	YUSUKE FUKUZUME v. PEOPLE 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]