Tuzon v. Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Dina Tuzon and Faustino Aguilar were accused of estafa for defrauding Lyric Piano Center Company, Inc. in the amount of P1,900.00. The complaint alleged that the accused, by falsely pretending to be an authorized agent of Carlos Rivera, executed a fictitious contract with the company, causing damage. The deceit was allegedly perpetrated at 184 Dr. Alejos Street, Quezon City, but the payment of P1,900.00, received by Dina Tuzon, was consummated in Mandaluyong, Rizal, specifically in the office of the municipal judge. Procedural History: The complainant, Benjamin Fernandez, filed a complaint for estafa with the Municipal Court of Mandaluyong, Rizal. The respondent judge, Cesar C. Cruz, conducted a preliminary examination and issued a warrant of arrest. Petitioner Dina Tuzon was arrested, posted bail, and subsequently filed a motion to quash the complaint, arguing that the estafa was committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Mandaluyong municipal court. The motion was denied, as was the motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed special civil actions of certiorari and prohibition to annul the order denying her motion to quash.
Issue(s)
Whether the Municipal Court of Mandaluyong has jurisdiction to conduct a preliminary investigation for estafa when an essential ingredient of the offense, the consummation of damage, occurred within its territorial jurisdiction, despite the deceit having been perpetrated elsewhere. Whether the respondent judge should have inhibited himself from investigating the case due to his being listed as a witness in the complaint.
Ruling
The petition is denied without prejudice to a new preliminary investigation being conducted by the incumbent municipal judge of Mandaluyong. The Court found that the venue was properly laid in Mandaluyong because an essential ingredient of the estafa charge, the actual payment to the accused of the amount swindled, took place in Mandaluyong. However, the Court also found the petitioner's contention regarding the judge's inhibition to be tenable, advising reinvestigation by the incumbent judge.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of venue and jurisdiction: The Court held that the Municipal Court of Mandaluyong could conduct the preliminary investigation because an essential ingredient of the estafa charge, which was the actual payment to the accused of the amount swindled, took place in Mandaluyong. Rule 110, Section 14(a) of the Rules of Court provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province wherein the offense was committed or any one of the essential ingredients thereof took place. The allegations of the complaint or information are controlling in determining whether the offense was committed within the court's territorial jurisdiction. The circumstance that the deceitful manipulations or false pretenses might have been perpetrated in Quezon City does not preclude the institution of the criminal action in Mandaluyong where the damage was consummated, as deceit and damage are the basic elements of estafa. The estafa involved in this case appears to be a transitory or continuing offense, which could be filed either in Quezon City or in Rizal, as the court of either province has jurisdiction to try the case if some acts material and essential to the crime and requisite to its consummation occur in one province and some in another. On the issue of inhibition: The Court found the petitioner's contention that Judge Cesar C. Cruz should have inhibited himself from investigating the case because he was listed as a witness in the complaint to be tenable. The Court stated that the respondent judge could not have displayed the cold neutrality of an impartial judge in this case. Therefore, it was advisable in the interest of justice that the case be reinvestigated by the incumbent municipal judge of Mandaluyong.
Main Doctrine
The venue of a criminal action for estafa may be laid in any municipality or province where any of the essential ingredients of the offense, including the consummation of the damage, took place, even if the deceit was perpetrated elsewhere. A municipal judge may conduct a preliminary investigation for offenses cognizable by the Court of First Instance if an essential ingredient of the offense occurred within his territorial jurisdiction.