Casanas vs. People of the Philippines

In criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional; a court cannot exercise jurisdiction over an offense committed outside its territorial territory. If the evidence adduced during trial shows that the crime was committed somewhere else, the case must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, even if the information alleges the offense within that court’s territory. The defense of lack of territorial jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, including for the first time on appeal.

On August 14, 2012, private complainant Christopher Calderon, a tricycle driver, was at the public market in Marilao, Bulacan when a passenger arrived. Petitioner Joshua Casanas, who was known to Calderon, volunteered to drive the tricycle for the passenger. Calderon handed over the key. When Casanas failed to return the tricycle, Calderon reported the incident to the police in Marilao the next day. On August 19, 2012, police in Valenzuela City received a tip about a suspected stolen motorcycle being sold; they found Casanas standing beside a motorcycle that turned out to be Calderon’s. Casanas was arrested in Valenzuela, and an information for carnapping was subsequently filed before the RTC of Valenzuela City.

• Nature: An Information charged petitioner with carnapping, alleging that on or about August 12, 2012, in Valenzuela City, he willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously took a Racal motorcycle with plate number 7539IJ without the consent of its owner, Christopher Calderon, with intent to gain.

• The Taking: On the evening of August 14, 2012, complainant Calderon was at the public market in Marilao, Bulacan, about to enter the market, when a passenger wanted to ride his tricycle. Petitioner, who was present, volunteered to drive for the passenger. Calderon handed over the key. Petitioner drove away with the tricycle and never returned. Calderon waited the entire night and, on the afternoon of the following day, reported the incident to the police in Marilao, Bulacan.

• The Arrest in Valenzuela: On August 19, 2012, the Valenzuela City Police received a report that a suspected stolen motorcycle was being sold in Karuhatan, Valenzuela City. Responding officers saw petitioner standing beside the subject motorcycle. When asked for proof of ownership, petitioner could not provide any. A frisk yielded a knife. Petitioner, the motorcycle (now without its sidecar), and the knife were brought to the police station. Investigation revealed the motorcycle was registered to Calderon. Calderon recovered it the next day.

• Defense Version: Petitioner admitted Calderon owned the motorcycle but denied stealing it. He claimed he borrowed it on August 18, 2012, could not return it that day because of a drinking session with friends, and was forcibly taken by policemen the next day while on his way home. He alleged a police officer produced a knife from a drawer, leading him to believe he was being detained for illegal possession of a knife.

• RTC Findings: The RTC found that the prosecution established all elements of carnapping. Petitioner initially had lawful possession of the motorcycle but his failure to return it and his continued personal use demonstrated intent to gain. The possession became unlawful upon breach of the agreement to return the vehicle.

• CA Findings: The CA affirmed, adding that the removal of the sidecar from the tricycle before recovery bolstered the intent to appropriate. Petitioner’s failure to contact Calderon for extended use or to seek his assistance upon apprehension was cited against him.

• Lack of Jurisdiction: Petitioner argued that the alleged carnapping occurred in Marilao, Bulacan, not in Valenzuela City, Metro Manila, where he was arrested, charged, and tried. The RTC-Valenzuela therefore had no jurisdiction over the offense.

• Estoppel and Submission to Jurisdiction: The Office of the Solicitor General maintained that petitioner was estopped from questioning jurisdiction because he failed to move for the quashal of the Information on that ground and voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the RTC-Valenzuela by participating in the trial.

• Jurisdiction: Whether the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City had jurisdiction over the carnapping case despite evidence that the unlawful taking occurred in Marilao, Bulacan.

• Jurisdiction: The RTC-Valenzuela had no jurisdiction. Venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional; a court may only take cognizance of offenses committed or having any essential ingredient within its territorial territory. The Information’s allegation that the crime was committed in Valenzuela was belied by the prosecution’s own evidence — Calderon’s Sinumpaang Salaysay and trial testimony — which consistently placed the taking in Marilao, Bulacan. The crime of carnapping is consummated at the moment the offender gains possession of the vehicle without the owner’s consent; all elements were thus completed in Marilao. The subsequent arrest of petitioner in Valenzuela City while in possession of the motorcycle did not cure the jurisdictional defect because the crime had already been consummated, and arrest is not an element of carnapping. Lack of territorial jurisdiction may be raised at any stage, even after final judgment, and cannot be waived by the parties or cured by estoppel. Consequently, the RTC conviction and the CA affirmance were null and void for want of jurisdiction.

• Venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases — A court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense committed outside its limited territory. If evidence shows the crime was committed somewhere else, the case must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, regardless of the allegations in the information. This doctrine derives from Sections 10 and 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and was reiterated in Navaja v. De Castro (761 Phil. 142, 2015).

• Lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage — The defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be interposed at any time, during appeal, or even after final judgment, because jurisdiction is conferred by law and cannot be conferred by the parties’ consent or by estoppel.

• Consummation of carnapping — Carnapping is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the motor vehicle, even if there is no opportunity to dispose of it. The element of “unlawful taking” or apoderamiento is satisfied upon gaining possession without the owner’s consent.

• “The jurisdiction of a court may be questioned at any stage of the proceedings. Lack of jurisdiction is one of those excepted grounds where the court may dismiss a claim or a case at any time when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that any of those grounds exists, even if they were not raised in the answer or in a motion to dismiss. So that, whenever it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the action shall be dismissed. This defense may be interposed at any time, during appeal or even after final judgment. Such is understandable, as this kind of jurisdiction is conferred by law and not within the courts, let alone the parties, to themselves determine or conveniently set aside.” — This passage encapsulates the controlling principle that jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be questioned for the first time on appeal.

• “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. … However, if the evidence adduced during the trial show that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.” (quoting Navaja v. De Castro) — This statement of the rule was dispositive in overturning the conviction.

• “‘Unlawful taking’ or apoderamiento is the taking of the motor vehicle without the consent of the owner … It is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same.” — This explains why the crime was consummated entirely in Marilao, not where the accused was later arrested.

• Navaja v. De Castro, 761 Phil. 142 (2015) — Controlling precedent on territorial jurisdiction: the court must dismiss for want of jurisdiction when evidence shows the offense was committed outside its territory.
• Treñas v. People, 680 Phil. 368 (2012) — Reiterated that venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional; a court cannot exercise jurisdiction over an offense committed outside its limited territory.
• Heirs of Fernando v. De Belen, 713 Phil. 364 (2013) — Affirmed that lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage, even after final judgment.
• People v. Donio, G.R. No. 212815, March 1, 2017 — Enumerated the elements of carnapping under R.A. No. 6539.

• Sections 10 and 15(a), Rule 110, 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Section 10 requires that the information state the offense was committed or some essential ingredient occurred within the court’s jurisdiction; Section 15(a) mandates that criminal actions be instituted and tried in the territory where the offense was committed or where any essential ingredient occurred. These provisions underpin the jurisdictional rule applied.
• Section 2, Republic Act No. 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972), as amended — Defines the crime of carnapping; the elements — actual taking of a motor vehicle belonging to another, without consent and with intent to gain — were all established to have occurred in Marilao, Bulacan.

Carpio (Chairperson), Peralta, and Caguioa, JJ., concurred. Reyes, Jr., J., was on official leave.