Civil vs. Criminal Cases | Jurisdiction

 

RE: Civil vs. Criminal Cases | Jurisdiction

It is settled that venue is an essential element of jurisdiction in criminal cases. It determines not only the place where the criminal action is to be instituted, but also the court that has the jurisdiction to try and hear the case. The reason for this rule is two-fold. First, the jurisdiction of trial courts is limited to well-defined territories such that a trial court can only hear and try cases involving crimes committed within its territorial jurisdiction. Second, laying the venue in the locus criminis is grounded on the necessity and justice of having an accused on trial in the municipality of province where witnesses and other facilities for his defense are available.1

Unlike in civil cases, a finding of improper venue in criminal cases carries jurisdictional consequences. In determining the venue where the criminal action is to be instituted and the court which has jurisdiction over it, Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the Rules of Court"² states that 

"subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court or municipality or territory where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred. "

This provision should be read with Section 10, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court in that, 

"the complaint or information is sufficient if it can be understood from its allegations that the offense was committed or some of its essential ingredients occurred at some place within the jurisdiction of the court, unless the particular place where it was committed constitutes an essential element of the offense charged or is necessary for its identification.''

Both aforequoted provisions categorically place the venue and jurisdiction over criminal cases not only in the court where the offense was committed, but also where any of its essential ingredients took place. In other words, the venue of action and of jurisdiction are deemed sufficiently alleged where the Information states that the offense was committed or some of its essential ingredients occurred at a place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.³

NIDA P. CORPUZ VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

[ G.R. No. 241383, June 08, 2020 ]

Read full text @

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/jun2020/gr_241383_2020.html

FOOTNOTES

1 Union Bank of the Philippines v. People, 683 Phil. 108 (2012).

2 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 110.

3 Union Bank of the Philippines v. People, supra note 26.