This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-01-25 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| The overarching consideration in this case is the principle that, in criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional. A court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense committed outside its limited territory. In Isip v. People,[18] this Court explained: 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. 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. (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2005-08-25 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Without filing a motion for reconsideration from the decision of the trial court and even before the latter could rule on the motion for execution pending appeal, Equitable Bank filed on April 24, 2002 a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus (with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction)[28] before the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 70298. Lavine also filed a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Writ of Preliminary Injunction[29] docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 70292, after it withdrew its Notice of Appeal. Both claimed that appeal was not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy under the circumstances. | |||||
|
2005-08-25 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the meantime, Equitable Bank and First Lepanto manifested in open court that another pre-trial should be conducted on the intervenors' cross-claim under the Second Amended Answer-in-Intervention but the trial court denied the same and proceeded with the hearing of the case.[20] | |||||
|
2005-08-25 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In view of the issuance of the writ of execution by the trial court, Equitable Bank filed an Amended and/or Supplemental Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus[37] in CA-G.R. SP No. 70298 on June 11, 2002, assailing the trial court's order granting execution pending appeal as well as the issuance of the writ of execution. In due course, the Court of Appeals promulgated a consolidated decision, the dispositive part of which reads: | |||||