This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2010-02-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| With respect to petitioner's contention that the RTC of Makati had no jurisdiction over the case, 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.[27] 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.[28] The jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information.[29] Once these are shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case.[30] In the instant case, the Information clearly alleged that the the crime was committed in Makati. The allegation in the Information was sufficiently proven by the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Moreover, the Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings of the CA and the RTC that the defense failed to present sufficient evidence to substantiate its allegation that the place where the buy-bust operation took place was within the territorial jurisdiction of Manila and not of Makati. The trial court was correct in holding that the testimony of the defense witness, who was an engineering assistant at the Office of the City Engineer of Manila, cannot be given credence, considering that his claims were not backed up by any supporting evidence. While the defense referred to a certification issued by a certain Magdiwang Recato from the Office of the City Engineer of Manila, to the effect that the place where the buy-bust operation was conducted was within the territorial jurisdiction of the city of Manila, the same was not offered in evidence and, hence, cannot be given evidentiary value. | |||||