G.R. No. 136994 , September 17, 2002.
Braulio Abalos, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Braulio Abalos was charged with Falsification of Private Documents in two separate Informations. The first, docketed as Criminal Case No. 22707, was filed before the Municipal Trial Court of Dagupan City on November 11, 1994. It alleged that on or about July 12, 1994, in Dagupan City, Abalos willfully caused the production and filling in of entries on Cash Receipts Nos. 39185, 39414, and 41775 of Pangasinan Photostat, and later offered them to the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen as supporting documents to his Bill of Costs in Civil Case No. 15958, with intent to cause damage to the heirs of Roman Soriano. The second, docketed as Criminal Case No. 10024, was filed before the Municipal Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, on December 12, 1994, involving Invoices Nos. 1070 and 1071 from Xerox Copying Machine of Lingayen. Abalos filed Motions to Quash in both cases, primarily arguing lack of jurisdiction. The Dagupan MTC initially granted his motion and quashed the case, but the RTC of Dagupan, on certiorari, reversed this order. The Lingayen MTC denied his motion, a decision affirmed by the RTC of Lingayen on certiorari. Abalos appealed both cases to the Court of Appeals, which consolidated and subsequently dismissed them for lack of merit. Abalos then filed the present petition for review.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Municipal Trial Courts of Dagupan City and Lingayen, Pangasinan, have jurisdiction over the respective Informations for Falsification of Private Documents.
2. Whether the filing of two separate complaints using identical affidavits and annexes constitutes forum shopping.
3. Whether the respective Informations should be dismissed for charging multiple offenses in a single information.

RULING

1. YES, both trial courts have jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined by the place where the offense was committed. The Dagupan case involved cash receipts issued by Pangasinan Photostat of Dagupan City, and the Information alleged the offense was committed in Dagupan City. The Lingayen case involved invoices issued by Xerox Copying Machine of Lingayen, Pangasinan, and the Information alleged the offense was committed in Lingayen. Each court could only validly take cognizance of offenses committed within its territorial jurisdiction. The act of falsification is committed at the time of signing the document with intent to cause damage, not when the document is later submitted in court. Therefore, the five counts of falsification (three in Dagupan and two in Lingayen) were separate offenses committed in different locations, vesting jurisdiction in the respective courts where the acts were performed.
2. NO, there was no forum shopping. Forum shopping presupposes the filing of multiple suits for the same cause of action. Here, five separate offenses of falsification were involved—each falsified document constitutes a separate crime. The fact that the falsified receipts and invoices were later used together in one court proceeding does not merge them into a single offense. Consequently, filing separate complaints for offenses committed in different locations does not constitute forum shopping.
3. The petition is DENIED on this point due to waiver. While Section 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court prohibits charging multiple offenses in a single information, petitioner failed to raise this specific objection in his Motions to Quash before the trial courts. In Dagupan, he alleged only lack of jurisdiction. In Lingayen, he alleged forum shopping, double jeopardy, lack of jurisdiction, and that facts do not constitute an offense. He raised the issue of “multifariousness of offenses alleged” only in his petition to the Supreme Court. This failure to raise the objection at the earliest opportunity, specifically during arraignment, amounts to a waiver and cannot be raised belatedly on appeal.
The consolidated decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.