GR 182926; (June, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 182926 June 22, 2015
ANA LOU B. NAVAJA, Petitioner, vs. HON. MANUEL A. DE CASTRO, or the Acting Presiding Judge of MCTC Jagna-Garcia-Hernandez, DKT PHILS., INC., represented by ATTY. EDGAR BORJE, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Ana Lou B. Navaja was charged with Falsification of Private Document under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Jagna-Garcia-Hernandez, Bohol. The Information alleged that on or about October 2, 2003, in Jagna, Bohol, she falsified a commercial receipt from Garden Cafe by altering the amount from ₱810.00 to ₱1,810.00 and used it to claim reimbursement from her employer, DKT Philippines, Inc. Navaja filed a Motion to Quash on the ground of improper venue, arguing that none of the essential elements of the crime occurred in Jagna, Bohol. The MCTC denied the motion. Her petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) was also denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision. Navaja elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari, insisting that the MCTC lacked jurisdiction due to improper venue.
ISSUE
Whether or not the MCTC of Jagna, Bohol, has jurisdiction over the criminal case for falsification of private document, considering the allegations on the place where the offense was committed.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed Court of Appeals Decision. The MCTC of Jagna, Bohol, has jurisdiction over the case.
Venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional. Under Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred. The allegations in the Information are controlling for the purpose of determining jurisdiction. The Information in this case explicitly alleged that the falsification was committed “on or about the 2nd day of October 2003, in the municipality of Jagna, province of Bohol.” This is sufficient to establish prima facie that the offense, or an essential ingredient thereof, occurred within the MCTC’s territorial jurisdiction. The Court held that in falsification cases, the venue is the place where the document is actually falsified. The Information, together with the supporting Complaint-Affidavit and the sworn statement of the cashier, Cherly Lavaro, who stated that Navaja borrowed her pen and wrote on the receipt immediately after its issuance in Jagna, Bohol, adequately alleged that the act of falsification—the alteration of the receipt—took place in Jagna. The argument that the element of damage only occurred later in Cebu City when reimbursement was claimed is immaterial for determining venue, as the crime of falsification is consummated once the document is falsified with intent to cause damage.