GR 156747; (February, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 156747; February 23, 2005
ALLEN A. MACASAET, NICOLAS V. QUIJANO, JR., and ALFIE LORENZO, petitioners, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and JOSELITO TRINIDAD, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, the columnist, publisher, and managing editor of the newspaper “Abante,” were charged with libel before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City for a published article allegedly defaming Joselito Trinidad. The information stated that the offended party, Trinidad, was also known as “Joey Trinidad” and “Toto Trinidad.” Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing the RTC of Quezon City lacked jurisdiction. They contended that under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, venue for libel lies either where the article was printed and first published or where the offended party actually resides at the time of the offense. Since the information disclosed Trinidad’s residence was in Marikina, Quezon City courts had no jurisdiction.
The trial court denied the motion, ruling that the information’s allegation that Trinidad “actually resides” in Quezon City was sufficient to establish venue. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, prompting the petitioners to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City acquired jurisdiction over the libel case based on the allegations in the information regarding the offended party’s residence.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. For libel under Article 360, the rules on venue are jurisdictional. The information must allege with particularity that the offense was committed within the court’s territorial jurisdiction, specifically by stating where the libelous article was printed and first published or where the offended party actually resided at the time of the offense.
The Court found the phrase “actually resides” in the information to be a mere conclusion of law, not a statement of fact. It did not positively assert that Trinidad was an actual resident of Quezon City. In contrast, the information itself contained an averment that the offended party was “a.k.a. Joey Trinidad a.k.a. Toto Trinidad,” which, when read alongside the defense’s evidence (including a voter’s affidavit and barangay certificate placing Trinidad in Marikina), indicated his residence was in Marikina, not Quezon City. An allegation of an alias does not equate to an allegation of residence. Therefore, the information failed to sufficiently allege that Trinidad was an actual resident of Quezon City to confer jurisdiction on its courts. The dismissal of the case by the trial court was reinstated.