G.R. No. 472 : April 28, 1902
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellant, vs. JOSE REYES, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
The defendant, Jose Reyes, was an employee of the Manila-Dagupan Railway. A complaint charged him with the complex crime of estafa and falsification. It alleged that on July 18, 1901, he issued a ticket to a passenger traveling from Manila to Malolos, but the ticket simulated a shorter trip from Manila to Bocaue for a fare of only 18 centavos. The defendant collected the correct higher fare of 1 peso and 22 centavos, rendered account to the company for only the 18 centavos, and appropriated the difference. The complaint did not precisely designate where the falsification was committed or where the money was appropriated. During the trial, evidence, including the defendant’s own testimony and a signed delivery receipt, established that he rendered his account and delivered the collected money (including the 18 centavos from the stub in question) to the station master in Tarlac.

ISSUE:
Whether the Court of First Instance of Manila had jurisdiction to try the case, given the evidence on where the acts constituting the crime were consummated.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order declining jurisdiction. Jurisdiction properly vested in the court of Tarlac. Under Article 29 of the General Compilation of Laws upon Criminal Procedure, jurisdiction lies where the crime was committed. The evidence demonstrated that the act of appropriation (estafa) was consummated in Tarlac when the defendant rendered a false account and delivered only part of the collections. Furthermore, the use of the allegedly falsified document also occurred in Tarlac. Since the place of the falsification itself was not clearly established, jurisdiction was properly determined by the place of the consummation of the estafa and the use of the document. Jurisdiction over criminal cases cannot be conferred by consent and must be determined by the facts established during the proceedings.