GR 172142; (October, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 172142 ; October 17, 2007
DAVID B. CAMPANANO, JR., Petitioner, vs. JOSE ANTONIO A. DATUIN, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Jose Antonio Datuin was convicted of Estafa based on a complaint filed by Seishin International Corporation, represented by its president, petitioner David B. Campanano, Jr. The conviction became final and executory. Subsequently, Datuin filed a complaint for Incriminating Against Innocent Persons under Article 363 of the Revised Penal Code against Campanano before the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office. Datuin alleged that he discovered a cash voucher dated June 28, 1993, proving he had fully paid for the equipment subject of the estafa case, thereby rendering the original complaint false and malicious.
The Quezon City Prosecutor dismissed the complaint, citing lack of jurisdiction because the estafa case was filed and tried in Pasig City. The prosecutor also noted that the estafa conviction was final, and the determination of the voucher’s materiality was not within its purview. The Department of Justice (DOJ) upheld this dismissal. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the DOJ, ordering the case remanded to the Quezon City Prosecutor for further investigation.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the Quezon City Prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation on Datuin’s complaint for Incriminating Against Innocent Persons.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the DOJ’s resolution dismissing the complaint. The Court clarified that jurisdiction for preliminary investigation of a crime is determined by the place where the crime was committed. For the crime of Incriminating Against Innocent Persons under Article 363, the act constituting the crime is the performance of an act that tends directly to cause a false prosecution, not the filing of the complaint itself. The gravamen is the act of “planting” evidence or similar deeds.
Here, the alleged incriminating act was Campanano’s filing of the estafa complaint and his subsequent testimony in court. Both acts were performed in Pasig City, where the estafa case was lodged and tried. Therefore, the situs of the alleged crime was Pasig City, not Quezon City. The Quezon City Prosecutor correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The counter-affidavit executed by Campanano in Quezon City is not the act complained of and does not confer jurisdiction. Consequently, the DOJ did not commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the dismissal, and the Court of Appeals erred in disturbing this finding.