Buaya vs. Polo

Jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information, not by the findings the court may make after trial. Where the information alleges that the offense was committed in a particular place, the court of that place acquires jurisdiction, and the crime of estafa, being a continuing or transitory offense, may be prosecuted at the place where any of its essential elements took place, including where the offended party sustained damage.

The petitioner was an insurance agent of private respondent Country Bankers Insurance Corporation, authorized to transact and underwrite insurance business and collect premiums for and in behalf of the private respondent. Under the agency agreement, the petitioner was required to make periodic reports and accounting of her transactions and to remit premium collections to the principal office of the private respondent located in the City of Manila. The private respondent had its principal place of business and office in Manila.

Petitioner Solemnidad M. Buaya was an insurance agent of private respondent Country Bankers Insurance Corporation, authorized to transact and underwrite insurance business and collect the corresponding premiums for and in behalf of the private respondent. Under the terms of the agency agreement, the petitioner was required to make a periodic report and accounting of her transactions and remit premium collections to the principal office of private respondent located in the City of Manila.

An audit was conducted on petitioner's account which showed a shortage in the amount of P358,850.72. As a result, she was charged with estafa in Criminal Case No. 83-22252 before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XIX, with respondent Hon. Wenceslao Polo as Presiding Judge. The information alleged that during the period 1980 to June 15, 1982, inclusive, in the City of Manila, the accused, having been authorized to act as insurance agent of the corporation, collected and received the amount of P368,850.00 representing payments of insurance premiums from customers, but far from complying with her obligation to remit, failed and refused to do so and, with intent to defraud, absconded with the whole amount, thereby misappropriating, misapplying, and converting the amount of P358,850.00 to her own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the corporation.

Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied by respondent Judge in an Order dated March 26, 1986. The subsequent motion for reconsideration of this order of denial was also denied. These two orders of denial became the subject of the present petition. Petitioner contended that the Regional Trial Court of Manila had no jurisdiction because she was based in Cebu City and necessarily the funds she allegedly misappropriated were collected in Cebu City. She further contended that the subject matter of the case was purely civil in nature because the private respondent separately filed Civil Case No. 83-14931 involving the same alleged misappropriated amount, which was an acceptance that the subject transaction complained of was not proper for a criminal action.

• Lack of Jurisdiction: Petitioner contended that the Regional Trial Court of Manila had no jurisdiction over the case because she was based in Cebu City and necessarily the funds she allegedly misappropriated were collected in Cebu City.
• Purely Civil Nature: Petitioner contended that the subject matter of the case was purely civil in nature because the fact that private respondent separately filed Civil Case No. 83-14931 involving the same alleged misappropriated amount was an acceptance that the subject transaction complained of was not proper for a criminal action.

• Interlocutory Order Not Subject to Certiorari: Respondents called for adherence to the consistent rule that the denial of a motion to dismiss or to quash, being interlocutory in character, cannot be questioned by certiorari and cannot be the subject of appeal until final judgment or order is rendered, citing Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
• Proper Procedure: Respondents argued that the ordinary procedure to be followed in such a case is to enter a plea, go to trial, and if the decision is adverse, reiterate the issue on appeal from the final judgment, citing Newsweek Inc. vs. IAC, 142 SCRA 171.

• Jurisdiction of the Trial Court: Whether the Regional Trial Court of Manila has jurisdiction over the criminal case for estafa against the petitioner.
• Purely Civil Nature of the Subject Matter: Whether the subject matter of the case is purely civil in nature, warranting dismissal of the criminal case.

• Jurisdiction of the Trial Court: Yes. The Regional Trial Court of Manila has jurisdiction over the case. Jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information, and the information expressly alleged that the offense was committed in the City of Manila. Moreover, estafa is a continuing or transitory offense which may be prosecuted at the place where any of the essential elements of the crime took place, and one essential element—damage to the offended party—occurred in Manila where the private respondent had its principal place of business.
• Purely Civil Nature of the Subject Matter: No. The contention that the subject matter is purely civil in nature was not sustained, as evidentiary facts on this point have still to be proved.

• Jurisdiction of the Trial Court: The Court applied the well-settled rule that the averments in the complaint or information characterize the crime to be prosecuted and the court before which it must be tried, citing Balite vs. People and People vs. Masilang. In Villanueva vs. Ortiz, the Court ruled that to determine the jurisdiction of the court in criminal cases, the complaint must be examined to ascertain whether the facts set out therein and the punishment provided for by law fall within the jurisdiction of the court where the complaint is filed. The jurisdiction of courts in criminal cases is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information, and not by the findings the court may make after the trial, citing People vs. Mission. The subject information charged petitioner with estafa committed "during the period 1980 to June 15, 1982 inclusive in the City of Manila, Philippines." Clearly, from the very allegation of the information, the Regional Trial Court of Manila has jurisdiction. Additionally, the crime of estafa is a continuing or transitory offense which may be prosecuted at the place where any of the essential elements of the crime took place. One of the essential elements of estafa is damage or prejudice to the offended party. The private respondent has its principal place of business and office at Manila, and the failure of the petitioner to remit the insurance premiums she collected allegedly caused damage and prejudice to private respondent in Manila.
• Purely Civil Nature of the Subject Matter: The Court stated that suffice it to state that evidentiary facts on this point have still to be proved. The Court acknowledged the general rule that denial of a motion to dismiss or quash is interlocutory and cannot be questioned by certiorari, but noted that this is subject to exceptions, as it would be unfair to require the defendant or accused to undergo the ordeal and expense of a trial if the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or offense or it is not the court of proper venue.

• Jurisdiction Determined by Allegations of the Information — Jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information, not by the findings the court may make after trial. The Court applied this doctrine by examining the information, which alleged that the offense was committed in the City of Manila, thereby vesting jurisdiction in the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
• Estafa as a Continuing or Transitory Offense — The crime of estafa is a continuing or transitory offense which may be prosecuted at the place where any of the essential elements of the crime took place. One of the essential elements of estafa is damage or prejudice to the offended party. Since the private respondent had its principal place of business in Manila and the failure to remit allegedly caused damage there, the offense could be prosecuted in Manila.
• Interlocutory Orders and Certiorari — The denial of a motion to dismiss or to quash, being interlocutory in character, cannot be questioned by certiorari and cannot be the subject of appeal until final judgment or order is rendered. However, this general rule is subject to exceptions, as it would be unfair to require the defendant or accused to undergo the ordeal and expense of a trial if the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or offense or it is not the court of proper venue.

• "It is well-settled that the averments in the complaint or information characterize the crime to be prosecuted and the court before which it must be tried." — This passage articulates the controlling doctrine that the allegations in the information determine both the nature of the crime and the proper court with jurisdiction.
• "The jurisdiction of courts in criminal cases is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information, and not by the findings the court may make after the trial." — This is the canonical formulation of the rule on jurisdiction in criminal cases, frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence.
• "Besides, the crime of estafa is a continuing or transitory offense which may be prosecuted at the place where any of the essential elements of the crime took place. One of the essential elements of estafa is damage or prejudice to the offended party." — This passage establishes the basis for prosecuting estafa in a place other than where the accused collected the funds, provided an essential element occurred there.

• Balite vs. People, L-21475, Sept. 30, 1966, cited in People vs. Masilang, 142 SCRA 680 — Cited for the rule that the averments in the complaint or information characterize the crime to be prosecuted and the court before which it must be tried.
• Villanueva vs. Ortiz, L-15344, May 30, 1960, 108 Phil. 493 — Cited for the rule that to determine jurisdiction in criminal cases, the complaint must be examined to ascertain whether the facts set out therein and the punishment provided for by law fall within the jurisdiction of the court where the complaint is filed.
• People vs. Mission, 87 Phil. 641 — Cited for the rule that jurisdiction of courts in criminal cases is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information, not by the findings the court may make after trial.
• Newsweek Inc. vs. IAC, 142 SCRA 171 — Cited by respondents for the rule that the denial of a motion to dismiss or quash is interlocutory and cannot be questioned by certiorari, and the ordinary procedure is to enter a plea, go to trial, and reiterate the issue on appeal.

• Section 14(a), Rule 110, Revised 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 of the essential elements thereof took place. The Court applied this provision to hold that the Regional Trial Court of Manila had jurisdiction because the information alleged the offense was committed in Manila and the damage element occurred there.
• Section 2, Rule 41, Rules of Court — Cited by respondents for the rule that the denial of a motion to dismiss or quash, being interlocutory, cannot be questioned by certiorari and cannot be the subject of appeal until final judgment or order is rendered.

Melencio-Herrera (Chairperson), Padilla, Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ., concurred.