G.R. No. L-27124 May 29, 1970
FRANCISCO COLMENARES, petitioner-appellant, vs. JUDGE ARTURO P. VILLAR, Municipal Judge of La Castellana, Negros Occidental, and ATTY. OTHELO CABALES, Chief of Police of La Castellana, Negros Occidental, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

The Chief of Police of La Castellana, Negros Occidental, filed a complaint in the Municipal Court of La Castellana against Francisco Colmenares for illegal possession of firearms (Criminal Case No. 1257). The complaint alleged that on December 22, 1965, in the municipality of La Castellana, Colmenares willfully and unlawfully had in his possession two unlicensed firearms. Colmenares filed a motion to quash the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, claiming that the firearms were actually taken from his possession by policemen in the municipality of La Carlota, Negros Occidental, not in La Castellana. The Municipal Judge denied the motion. Colmenares then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, raising the same issue of improper venue. The CFI dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Colmenares appealed to the Supreme Court, reiterating that since the firearms were found and removed from his custody in La Carlota, the Municipal Court of La Castellana had no jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the Municipal Court of La Castellana properly acquired jurisdiction over the criminal case for illegal possession of firearms, given the accused’s claim that the firearms were confiscated in La Carlota.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Court of First Instance, ruling that the Municipal Court of La Castellana properly acquired jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. The complaint filed in La Castellana expressly alleged that the offense of illegal possession of firearms was committed within that municipality. Under the Rules of Court, criminal actions shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province where the offense was committed or where any essential ingredient thereof took place. The fact that the firearms were later confiscated from the accused in La Carlota does not divest the La Castellana court of jurisdiction, as the offense of illegal possession, being malum prohibitum, is consummated by the very act of possession without license. The place of confiscation is immaterial to the completion of the offense. For venue purposes, it is sufficient that the complaint alleges the situs of the offense to be within the court’s territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, the appeal was without merit.