Colmenares vs. Villar

The jurisdiction and venue of a criminal case are determined by the allegations of the complaint or information, not by the place where the contraband was later confiscated; for a malum prohibitum offense such as illegal possession of firearms, the crime is consummated by unauthorized possession, and venue lies where the complaint alleges the offense or any essential ingredient occurred.

Francisco Colmenares was the accused in a criminal charge for illegal possession of firearms, while Atty. Othelo Cabales was the Chief of Police of La Castellana, Negros Occidental, and Judge Arturo P. Villar was the municipal judge of that municipality. The case implicated the rule that criminal actions are instituted and tried where the offense or any essential ingredient was committed, and the classification of illegal possession of firearms as malum prohibitum. No extrinsic commercial or contractual relationship connected the parties beyond the criminal charge and the municipal officials’ enforcement roles.

At about 1:30 in the afternoon of December 22, 1965, in the municipality of La Castellana, Negros Occidental, Francisco Colmenares allegedly had in his possession and custody two firearms: a Colt super .38 bearing SN 43975 with magazine loaded with 9 rounds of live ammunition, and a WTC Austen MK.I No. 70 with magazine loaded with 23 rounds of live ammunition, without first having obtained the proper license therefor. The Chief of Police of La Castellana filed a complaint for illegal possession of firearms against him in the Municipal Court of La Castellana, Criminal Case No. 1257, naming Eduardo Colmenares and others as witnesses.

Colmenares contested the charge on venue grounds. He claimed that the firearms mentioned in the complaint were taken from his possession in the municipality of La Carlota, Negros Occidental, by La Carlota policemen, and not in La Castellana where the complaint was filed. On that basis, he moved to quash the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

The Municipal Judge and Chief of Police of La Castellana maintained that although the alleged unlicensed firearms were taken from Colmenares’s custody by La Carlota policemen, the unlawful act of carrying unlicensed firearms started from La Castellana. They asserted that the La Carlota policemen intercepted Colmenares and took the firearms only because the La Castellana policemen had earlier requested assistance by telephone and were pursuing Colmenares, who was fleeing in a taxicab (Koken No. 25), to assist in his apprehension.

The factual accounts thus diverged on the situs of the offense: the complaint alleged possession in La Castellana, while Colmenares asserted that the firearms were confiscated from him in La Carlota.

• Venue/Jurisdiction: Petitioner-appellant argued that the Municipal Court of La Castellana had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the illegal possession case because the firearms specified in the complaint were found in and removed from his custody in the Municipality of La Carlota, not in La Castellana.
• Improper Venue: Petitioner maintained that venue was improperly laid in La Castellana, since the firearms were taken from his possession by La Carlota policemen within La Carlota.

• Commencement of Offense in La Castellana: Respondents contended that although the alleged unlicensed firearms were taken from the accused’s custody by La Carlota policemen, the unlawful act of carrying unlicensed firearms started from La Castellana.
• Interception Upon Request: Respondents argued that the La Carlota policemen intercepted the accused and took the firearms only because the La Castellana policemen had earlier requested assistance by telephone and were pursuing the accused, who was fleeing in a taxicab, to assist in his apprehension.

• Venue/Jurisdiction: Whether the Municipal Court of La Castellana had jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 1257 for illegal possession of firearms where the firearms were allegedly confiscated from the accused in La Carlota, Negros Occidental.
• Determination of Venue: Whether venue is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information rather than by the place where the firearms were confiscated.

• Venue/Jurisdiction: Yes. The Municipal Court of La Castellana had jurisdiction because the complaint alleged that the accused was found in possession of unlicensed firearms in La Castellana, and jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information.
• Determination of Venue: The allegations control. Under the Rules, criminal actions shall be instituted and tried where the offense or any essential ingredient took place; the confiscation in La Carlota did not affect venue or the merits, since illegal possession of firearms is malum prohibitum and is consummated by unauthorized possession.

• Venue/Jurisdiction: The jurisdiction of the court over a case is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information. The complaint filed with the Municipal Court of La Castellana recited that the accused, Francisco Colmenares, was found in possession of two unlicensed firearms in the Municipality of La Castellana. That allegation made the filing of the case in the La Castellana municipal court proper. Under the Rules, criminal actions 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. Since the complaint alleged the situs of the offense in La Castellana, venue and jurisdiction were properly laid there.
• Determination of Venue: The fact that the firearms were confiscated from Colmenares by La Carlota policemen within the territorial boundaries of La Carlota would not sustain the motion to quash nor affect the merits. It was not altogether improbable that the offense of unlawful possession of firearms could have been committed in La Castellana, as stated in the complaint, and also in La Carlota, as manifested by the appellant. Because illegal possession of firearms is malum prohibitum, the crime is consummated by the very fact of its performance—by the firearms being possessed or held by the accused without proper authorization. The place where the firearms were finally confiscated and taken away from the accused is immaterial; it could not have added anything to the nature of the unlawful act completed and consummated earlier. For purposes of the proceeding in the La Castellana municipal court, it was sufficient that, according to the prosecution, the accused was in possession of the unlicensed firearms while he was in La Castellana. To determine correct venue, the vital point is the allegation of the situs of the offense charged in the complaint or information, and that was satisfied.

• Jurisdiction determined by allegations of complaint or information — The jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information, not by the evidence or the place where the contraband was later confiscated. In this case, because the complaint alleged that Colmenares possessed unlicensed firearms in La Castellana, the Municipal Court of La Castellana had jurisdiction even though the firearms were taken from him in La Carlota.
• Venue in criminal cases — Under the Rules, criminal actions 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 Court applied this rule by looking to the complaint’s allegation of the situs of the offense, which placed the offense in La Castellana.
• Malum prohibitum — A malum prohibitum offense is consummated by the very fact of its performance. Illegal possession of firearms is such an offense; it is consummated by the firearms being possessed or held without proper authorization. Thus, the place where the firearms were finally confiscated is immaterial to the unlawful act already completed.

• "It must be remembered that the jurisdiction of the court over a case is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information." — This states the ratio decidendi on jurisdiction: the court looks to the complaint’s allegations, not the place of confiscation.
• "Under the Rules, criminal actions 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." — This is the controlling venue rule applied to sustain the filing in La Castellana.
• "For, being malum prohibitum, the crime is consummated by the very fact of its performance; by the firearms being possessed or held by the accused without proper authorization therefor." — This defines the nature of illegal possession of firearms and explains why the later confiscation in La Carlota did not negate the offense.
• "To determine the correct venue, the vital point is the allegation of the situs of the offense charged in the complaint or information, and that is satisfied in this case." — This summarizes the venue test and its application to the complaint’s allegations.

• Duran vs. Tan, 85 Phil. 476 — Cited in the decision in support of the ruling that the place where the firearms were finally confiscated and taken from the accused is immaterial to the unlawful act already consummated.
• Mediante vs. Ortiz, L-19425, 27 April 1967, 19 SCRA 832 — Cited in support of the rule that, to determine correct venue, the vital point is the allegation of the situs of the offense charged in the complaint or information.

• Section 14, Revised Rule 110 — Provides that criminal actions 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 Court applied this provision by holding that the complaint’s allegation of possession in La Castellana made venue proper there, notwithstanding the confiscation in La Carlota.

Concepcion, C.J.; Dizon; Makalintal; Zaldivar; Fernando; Teehankee; Barredo; and Villamor, JJ. No separate concurring opinions are summarized in the text.