Garcia vs Sandiganbayan Parties Petitioners: Clarita Garcia Carlos Garcia Ian Car,Juan Paolo and Timothy Mark (sons

of Garcias) Respondent: Sandiganbayn(SB) Facts This is a petition filed by Clarita Garcia, wife of retired Major Gen. Carlos F. Garcia, with application for injunctive relief in order issued by the Fourth Division of Sandiganbayan denying the motion to quash or dismiss Civil Case No. 0193, a suit for the forfeiture commenced by the Republic against petitioner and her immediate family. The forfeiture suit was to recover unlawfully acquired funds and properties that the Garcias allegedly acquired and amassed. Then Republic then filed with the Sandiganbay through the OMB a petition for forfeiture of those alleged unlawfully acquired properties of the Garcias. The case was docketed as Civil Case 0193(Forfeiture I) and subsequently another case of forfeiture involving the same parties was filed docketed as Civil Case 0196(Forfeiture II). Thus the two cases were consolidated for convenience and clarity. Before the filing of Forfeiture II but subsequent to the filing of Forfeiture I, the OMB charged the Garcias with violation of RA 7080(plunder) and the case raffled to the second division of SB. The plunder charge covered substantially the same properties identified in both Forfeiture I and II. Petitioner now contends, after denying there motion to dismiss the Forfeiture I case, that the the plunder case and the Forfeiture I case should be consolidated in the 2nd division of SB pursuant to RA 8249. On May 20, 2005, the SB 4th Division denied the motion for the reason that the forfeiture case is not the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the criminal case of plunder. Arguments Petitioner: (a) the filing of the plunder case ousted the SB 4thDivision of jurisdiction over the forfeiture case; (b) that the consolidation is imperative in order to avoid possible double jeopardy entanglements. Issue Whether or not the Fourth Division of the SB has acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner and her three sons considering that, first, vis--vis Civil Case Nos. 0193 (Forfeiture I) and 0196 (Forfeiture II), summons against her have been ineffectively or improperly served
Page 1 of 10

and, second, that the plunder case Crim. Case No. 28107 has already been filed and pending with the 2nd division of the SB. Decision The court ruled that the forfeiture cases and plunder cases have different causes of action. The former is civil in nature and the latter is criminal. On the matter of double jeopardy the court held that: Double jeopardy, as a criminal law concept, refers to jeopardy of punishment for the same offense, suggesting that double jeopardy presupposes two separate criminal prosecutions. Proceedings under RA 1379 are, to repeat, civil in nature. As a necessary corollary, one who is sued under RA 1379 may be proceeded against for a criminal offense. Thus, the filing of a case under that law is not barred by the conviction or acquittal of the defendant in Crim. Case 28107 for plunder. The court also said that RA 7080(plunder) did not repeal RA 1379(forfeiture) stating that: Nowhere in RA 7080 can we find any provision that would indicate a repeal, expressly or impliedly, of RA 1379. RA 7080 is a penal statute which, at its most basic, aims to penalize the act of any public officer who by himself or in connivance with members of his family amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount of at least PhP 50 million. On the other hand, RA 1379 is not penal in nature, in that it does not make a crime the act of a public official acquiring during his incumbency an amount of property manifestly out of proportion of his salary and other legitimate income. RA 1379 aims to enforce the right of the State to recover the properties which were not lawfully acquired by the officer. However on the matter on Jurisdiction over the person of Clarita Garcia and his sons the court said that the 4th division of SB did not acquire jurisdiction because there was no valid substituted services of summons made, the SB did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of petitioner and her children for the reason that there was also no voluntary appearance since they questioned the jurisdiction of the 4th division of SB through their motion to dismiss and quashal for lack of jurisdiction into their person . And perforce, the proceedings in the subject forfeiture cases, insofar as petitioner and her three children are concerned, are null and void for lack of jurisdiction. Thus, the order declaring them in default must be set aside and voided insofar as petitioner and her three children are concerned. For the forfeiture case to proceed against them, it is, thus, imperative for the SB to serve anew summons or alias summons on the petitioner and her three children in order to acquire jurisdiction over their persons. WHEREFORE, the petitions for certiorari and mandamus are PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division has not acquired jurisdiction over petitioner Clarita D. Garcia and her three children. The proceedings in Civil Case Nos. 0193 and 0196 before the
Page 2 of 10

Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, insofar as they pertain to petitioner and her three children, are VOID for lack of jurisdiction over their persons. No costs.

Antiporda jr vs. Garchitorena 321 SCRA 551 Facts: Accused Licerio A. Antiporda, Jr., Et. Al were charged with the crime of kidnapping one Elmer Ramos in an Information filed with the First Division of the Sandiganbayan dated September 18, 1997. The handling prosecutor, Evelyn T. Lucero Agcaoili, sought for the amendment of the info filed on September 18, 1997 because of some inadequacies in the allegations in the said Information. An Amended Information was admitted by the Sandiganbayan in a resolution dated November 24, 1997. The original information did not allege that one of the petitioners, Licerio A. Antiporda, Jr., took advantage of his position as mayor of Buguey, Cagayan to order the kidnapping of Elmer Ramos. Accused filed a Motion for New Preliminary Investigation and to Hold in Abeyance and/or Recall Warrant of Arrest Issued, denied. Issues: a) CAN THE SANDIGANBAYAN, WHICH HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENSE CHARGED IN THE ORIGINAL INFORMATION, SUBSEQUENTLY ACQUIRE SUCH JURISDICTION BY THE SIMPLE EXPEDIENT OF AMENDING THE INFORMATION TO SUPPLY, FOR THE FIRST TIME, JURISDICTIONAL FACTS NOT PREVIOUSLY AVERRED IN THE ORIGINAL INFORMATION? and b) COROLLARILY, CAN THE AMENDED INFORMATION BE ALLOWED WITHOUT CONDUCTING ANEW A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION FOR THE GRAVER OFFENSE CHARGED THEREIN? Held:
Page 3 of 10

jurisdiction to try a criminal case only when the following requisites concur: (1) the offense is one which the court is by law authorized to take cognizance of, (2) the offense must have been committed within its territorial jurisdiction, and (3) the person charged with the offense must have been brought in to its forum for trial, forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon his voluntary submission to the court. The Sandiganbayan exercises not only civil but also criminal jurisdiction. It is undisputed that the Sandiganbayan had territorial jurisdiction over the case. But the third requisite is lacking, the accused xxx have no right to invoke the processes of the court since they have not been placed in the custody of the law or otherwise deprived of their liberty by reason or as a consequence of the filling of the information. For the same reason, the court had no authority to act on the petition. The original Information filed with the Sandiganbayan did not mention that the offense committed by the accused is office-related. It was only after the same was filed that the prosecution belatedly remembered that a jurisdictional fact was omitted therein. However, we hold that the petitioners are estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan for in the supplemental arguments to motion for reconsideration and/or reinvestigation dated June 10, 1997[20] filed with the same court, it was they who challenged the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court over the case and clearly stated in their Motion for Reconsideration that the said crime is work connected and thus cognizable with Sandigan Bayan. the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case because of estoppel and it was thus vested with the authority to order the amendment of the Information. Petitioner prayed that a reinvestigation be made in view of the Amended Information. We hold that the reinvestigation is not necessary anymore. A reinvestigation is proper only if the accuseds substantial rights would be impaired. In the case at bar, we do not find that their rights would be unduly prejudiced if the Amended Information is filed without a reinvestigation
Page 4 of 10

taking place. The amendments made to the Information merely describe the public positions held by the accused/petitioners and stated where the victim was brought when he was kidnapped. The purpose of a preliminary investigation has been achieved already and we see no cogent nor compelling reason why a reinvestigation should still be conducted.

Fukuzume vs People GR. No. 143647 November 11, 2005 Facts: Yu went to the house of Fukuzume in Paraaque; that with the intention of selling the subject aluminum scrap wires, the latter pretended that he is a representative of Furukawa who is authorized to sell the said scrap wires; that based on the false pretense of Fukuzume, Yu agreed to buy the subject aluminum scrap wires; that Yu paid Fukuzume the initial amount of P50,000.00 of the total agreed price of P290,000.00. that as a result , Yu suffered damage. Subsequently, Yu filed a complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). In 1994, an information is filed with the RTC Makati, charged Fukuzume with Estafa. The trial court found Fukuzume guilty as charged which was also affirmed by the CA. Hence, this petition. Fukuzume contended that the CA erred in ruling that the RTC of Makati has jurisdiction over the offense charged since contract of sale of the aluminum scrap wires took place at appellants residence in Paraaque. Contrary to the allegation in the information that crime was committed in Makati. Issues: WON the trial court of Makati has jurisdiction. WON the lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised for the first time in the CA
Page 5 of 10

SC Held: We agree with Fukuzumes contention that the CA erred in ruling that the RTC of Makati has jurisdiction over the offense charged. From the foregoing, it is evident that the prosecution failed to prove that Fukuzume committed the crime of estafa in Makati or that any of the essential ingredients of the offense took place in the said city. Hence, the judgment of the trial court convicting Fukuzume of the crime of estafa should be set aside for want of jurisdiction, without prejudice, however, to the filing of appropriate charges with the court of competent jurisdiction. It is noted that it was only in his petition with the CA that Fukuzume raised the issue of the trial courts jurisdiction over the offense charged. Nonetheless, the rule is settled that an objection based on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the offense charged may be raised or considered motu propio by the court at any stage of the proceedings or on appeal. Moreover, jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal case cannot be conferred upon the court by the accused, by express waiver or otherwise, since such jurisdiction is conferred by the sovereign authority which organized the court, and is given only by law in the manner and form prescribed by law. While an exception to this rule was recognized by this Court beginning with the landmark case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, wherein the defense of lack of jurisdiction by the court which rendered the questioned ruling was considered to be barred by laches, we find that the factual circumstances involved in said case, a civil case, which justified the departure from the general rule are not present in the instant criminal case.
Bonifacio etal vs RTCMakati

Facts:

Parents Enabling Parents Coalition Inc (PEPCI)is a group formed by the disgruntled planholders of PPI, a company owned by the Yuchengco Group of Companies (YGC),who had previously purchased traditional pre-need educational plans but were unable avail of its benefits. Because of this, PEPCI launched a website in the internet (www.pepcoalition.com) and other sites (www.pacificnoplan.blogspot.com, no2pep2010@yahoogroups.com)

where planholders could seek redressfor theirpecuniary loss. Private respondent Gimenez alleged that when he accessed thewebsites,he read 13 articles maliciously and recklessly causedtobe published, containing highlyderogatory statements attacking the Yuchengco Family, YGC, and Malayan. Thus Gimenez, on behalf of the Yuchengco Family and of the Malayan, filed a criminal complaint for 13 counts of libel against petiotioners Bonifacio et. al. who are officers, trustee and members of PEPCI. Page 6 of 10

The Makati City Prosecutors Office found probable cause to indict the accused, so it filed 13 separate Informations. But upon appeal, the Secretary of Justice reversed the said decision. The RTC later grante the petitioners' Motion to Quash the Information saying that the Information lacked any allegations that the offended parties were actually residing in Makati at the time of the commission of the offense as in fact they listed their address in the complaint-affidavit at Yuchengco Tower in Binondo, Manila; or that the alleged libelous article was printed and first published in Makati.

The prosecution moved to reconsider the quashal of the Information, insisting that the Information conferred jurisdiction on RTC Makati, saying that the Information need not allege verbatim that the libelous publication was printed and first published in the appropriate venue. And it pointed out that Malayan has an office in Makati of which Helen is a resident. Moreover, they alleged that even assuming that the Information was deficient, it merely needed a formal amendment. The RTC granted the motion thus, the prosecution move to admit the amended information stating that the accused published an article imputing a vice or defect to the complainant and caused to be composed, posted and published in the said website www.pepcoalition.com, a website accessible in Makati City, an injurious and defamatory article, which was first published and accessed by the private complainant in Makati City.

Issue: (1) whether petitioners violated the rule on hierarchy of courts to thus render the petition dismissible; and (2) whether grave abuse of discretion attended the public respondents admission of the Amended Information.

Held:

SC ruled in favor of the petitioners.

1. The established policy of strict observance of the judicial hierarchy of courts requires that recourse must first be made to the lower-ranked court exercising concurrent jurisdiction with a higher court. A regard for judicial hierarchy clearly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level courts should be filed in the RTC and those against the latter should be filed in the Court of Appeals. The rule is not iron-clad, however, as it admits of certain exceptions such as when cases brought before the appellate courts do not
involve factual but purely legal questions.

Page 7 of 10

In the present case, the substantive issue calls for the Courts exercise of its discretionary authority, by way of exception, in order to abbreviate the review process as petitioners raise a pure question of law involving jurisdiction in criminal complaints for libel under Article 360 of the RPC whether the Amended Information is sufficient to sustain a charge for written defamation in light of the requirements under Article 360 of the RPC, as amended by RA 4363.

2, Before article 360 was amended, the rule was that a criminal action for libel may be instituted in any jurisdiction where the libelous article was published or circulated, irrespective of where it was written or printed (People v. Borja, 43 Phil. 618). Under that rule, the criminal action is transitory and the injured party has a choice of venue. Experience had shown that under that old rule the offended party could harass the accused in a libel case by laying the venue of the criminal action in a remote or distant place. To forestall such harassment, Republic Act No. 4363 was enacted. It lays down specific rules as to the venue of the criminal action so as to prevent the offended party in written defamation cases from inconveniencing the accused by means of out-of-town libel suits, meaning complaints filed in remote municipal courts (Explanatory Note for the bill which became RA 4363.(Chavez vs CA).

If the circumstances as to where the libel was printed and first published are used by the offended party as basis for the venue in the criminal action, the Information must allege with particularity where the defamatory article was printed and first published, as evidenced or supported by, for instance, the address of their editorial or business offices in the case of newspapers, magazines or serial publications. This pre-condition becomes necessary in order to forestall any inclination to harass.

3. The same measure cannot be reasonably expected when it pertains to defamatory material appearing on a website on the internet as there would be no way of determining the situs of its printing and first publication. To credit Gimenezs premise of equating his first access to the defamatory article on petitioners website inMakati with printing and first publication would spawn the very ills that the amendment to Article 360 of the RPC sought to discourage and prevent. It hardly requires much imagination to see the chaos that would ensue in situations where the websites author or writer, a blogger or anyone who posts messages therein could be sued for libel anywhere in the Philippines that the private complainant may have allegedly accessed the offending website.

For the Court to hold that the Amended Information sufficiently vested jurisdiction in the courts of Makati simply because the defamatory article was accessedtherein would open the floodgates to the libel suit being filed in all other locations where the pepcoalition website is likewise accessed or capable of being accessed.

In the case of Chavez, SC said that to grant the present petition, it would be necessary to abandon the Agbayani rule which provides that a private person must file the complaint for libel either in the place of printing and first publication, or at the complainants place of residence. xxx There is no convincing reason to resort to such a radical action. These limitations imposed on libel actions filed by private persons are hardly onerous, especially as they still allow such persons to file the civil or criminal complaint in

Page 8 of 10

their respective places of residence, in which situation there is no need to embark on a quest to determine with precision where the libelous matter was printed and first published.

G.R. No. 167764 October 9, 2009 VICENTE FOZ, JR. and DANNY G. FAJARDO, petitioners vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. The present case is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA), Cebu City, which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), finding petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of libel. Also assailed is the CA Resolution denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration. FACTS: An information was filed before the RTC of Iloilo City where herein petitioners, Vicente Foz, Jr. and Danny G. Fajardo were charged with the crime of libel. It alleged that on or about the 5th day of July, 1994 in the City of Iloilo, Philippines, both the accused as columnist and Editor-Publisher, respectively, of Panay News, a daily publication with a considerable circulation in the City of Iloilo and throughout the region, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with malicious intent of impeaching the virtue, honesty, integrity and reputation of Dr. Edgar Portigo, a physician and medical practitioner in Iloilo City, and with the malicious intent of injuring and exposing said Dr. Edgar Portigo to public hatred, contempt and ridicule, write and publish in the regular issue of said daily publication on July 5, 1994, a certain article entitled MEET DR. PORTIGO, COMPANY PHYSICIAN. It later was later found out that the said article was a sham, that both of the accused knew that the allegations were entirely false and malicious and without foundation in fact. This led to the filing of the case of libel by private respondent, Dr. Edgar Portigo, as the statements were highly libellous, offensive and derogatory to his good name and reputation. RTC rendered its decision in favor of the private respondent, finding both accused Danny Fajardo and Vicente Foz, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Libel. A motion for reconsideration was filed, however it was denied. Dissatisfied, petitioners filed an appeal with the CA. CA rendered its assailed decision which affirmed in toto the RTC decision. ISSUE: WON the RTC of Iloilo City had jurisdiction over the offense of libel as charged in the Information.

Page 9 of 10

HELD: The Court notes that petitioners raised for the first time the issue of the RTC's jurisdiction over the offense charged only in their Reply filed before this Court and finds that petitioners are not precluded from doing so. The Court finds merit in the petition. Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction. It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases the offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense allegedly committed outside of that limited territory. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. And once it is so shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case. The criminal action and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations, as provided for in this chapter shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance of the province or city where the libellous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense. Applying the foregoing law to the case at bar, it is evident that the information filed fell short of the jurisdictional requirement; 1. The allegation in the Information was not able to establish that the said publication was printed and first published in Iloilo City, it only showed that Iloilo was the place where Panay News was in considerable circulation. 2. The allegation in the Information did not clearly and positively indicate that Dr. Portigo was actually residing in Iloilo City at the time of the commission of the offense, it only states that Dr. Portigo is a physician and medical practitioner in Iloilo City. It is possible that Dr. Portigo was actually residing in another place. Considering that the Information failed to allege the venue requirements for a libel case under Article 360, the Court finds that the RTC of Iloilo City had no jurisdiction to hear this case. Thus, its decision convicting petitioners of the crime of libel should be set aside for want of jurisdiction without prejudice to its filing with the court of competent jurisdiction.

Page 10 of 10