Macasaet vs. People

In libel cases, the information must allege the specific basis for venue under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code—either where the libelous article was printed and first published or where the offended party actually resided at the time of the offense—and the absence of such allegations deprives the trial court of jurisdiction, which cannot be cured by extrinsic evidence.

Columnist, publisher, managing editor, and editor of the newspaper "Abante" were charged with libel for an article imputing ungratefulness, bad hygiene, and malicious intent to private respondent Joselito Trinidad. The article, penned by co-accused Jordan Castillo, described Trinidad as a freeloader who fabricated stories against "Tito Alfie" (Alfie Lorenzo). An Information dated July 10, 1997, was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City.

• The Information: An Information dated July 10, 1997, charged petitioners (Abante staff) and others with libel. The Information stated the offense occurred in Quezon City but listed private respondent's address as Karen St., Paliparan, Sto. Niño, Marikina City.
• Motion to Dismiss: Petitioners moved to dismiss, arguing the RTC Quezon City lacked jurisdiction under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code because the Information indicated private respondent resided in Marikina, while the editorial box of Abante showed it was printed and published in Manila.
• Evidentiary Submissions: Petitioners submitted barangay certifications indicating private respondent was not a resident of Barangay Malaya, Quezon City, but was a bona fide member of Barangay Sto. Niño, Marikina City. Private respondent countered with a supplemental affidavit claiming he mistakenly wrote Marikina as his "address" (place of origin) instead of actual residence (Quezon City), and later submitted an affidavit from Cristina Del Rosario, his alleged lessor in Quezon City.
• Lower Court Rulings: The RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, finding the Information insufficient to vest jurisdiction and disregarding Del Rosario's affidavit as highly suspect curative evidence. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the supplemental affidavit cured the defect and that Del Rosario's affidavit supported private respondent's claim of Quezon City residency.

• Territorial Jurisdiction: Petitioners argued that the RTC Quezon City lacked territorial jurisdiction because the Information, complaint-affidavit, and preliminary investigation memorandum all indicated private respondent resided in Marikina City, while Abante was printed in Manila.
• Admissibility of Affidavit: Petitioners maintained that the Court of Appeals erred in admitting the affidavit of Cristina Del Rosario, as it was belatedly submitted, the affiant was not presented for cross-examination, and it was not formally offered as evidence.
• Personality to Appeal: Petitioners insisted that only the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) is authorized to institute appeals in criminal cases; thus, private respondent lacked the personality to appeal the RTC's dismissal.

• Territorial Jurisdiction: Respondent countered that he actually resided in Quezon City at the time of publication, as proven by Del Rosario's affidavit and the fact that petitioners themselves sent copies of pleadings to his Quezon City address.
• Admissibility of Affidavit: Respondent argued that the prosecution attempted to present the affiant, who was out of town, and cited jurisprudence allowing the admission of un-presented affidavits.
• Personality to Appeal: Respondent contended that the public prosecutor filed the notice of appeal, and the private complainant has the right to appeal the civil aspect of the dismissed criminal case.

• Territorial Jurisdiction: Whether the RTC of Quezon City acquired territorial jurisdiction over the libel case given the allegations in the Information.
• Admissibility of Extrinsic Evidence: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving weight to the affidavit of Cristina B. Del Rosario to establish jurisdiction.
• Personality to Appeal: Whether the private respondent and public prosecutor had the personality to file the notice of appeal before the trial court.

• Territorial Jurisdiction: The RTC Quezon City did not acquire jurisdiction. Venue in libel cases is jurisdictional under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code. The Information must allege where the libelous article was printed and first published or where the offended party actually resided. The Information merely stated "Quezon City" without alleging the basis for invoking venue. Jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined strictly by the allegations in the Information; extrinsic evidence cannot cure a jurisdictional defect absent recognized exceptions (e.g., extinction of criminal liability, prescription, double jeopardy, insanity), which are inapplicable here.
• Admissibility of Extrinsic Evidence: The Court of Appeals erred in relying on Del Rosario's affidavit. Under Rule 10, Section 6 of the Rules of Court, supplemental pleadings must set forth events occurring after the date of the pleading supplemented. Del Rosario's affidavit pertained to facts existing before the motion for reconsideration and was belatedly submitted without justification. It cannot supplant the allegations of the Information.
• Personality to Appeal: The notice of appeal was properly filed. The OSG represents the government in appellate courts and takes over a criminal case only after it reaches the appellate courts. Under Rule 41, Section 9 of the Rules of Court, the trial court retains jurisdiction until the perfection of all appeals and the expiration of the period to appeal. Until that time, the public and private prosecutors may file a notice of appeal before the trial court.

• Jurisdiction Determined by the Information — Jurisdiction over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. In resolving a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction, the facts contained in the information are taken as they are; extrinsic evidence cannot cure a jurisdictional defect unless the case falls under recognized exceptions (extinction of criminal liability, prescription, double jeopardy, or insanity), where a preliminary trial is required.
• Venue as Jurisdictional in Libel Cases — In criminal actions for written defamation, venue is jurisdictional. The place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue but is an essential element of jurisdiction. Under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, the complaint or information must allege whether the offended party was a public officer or private individual, where they actually resided at the time of the offense, and, whenever possible, where the libelous article was printed and first published.
• Nature of Supplemental Pleadings — Supplemental pleadings reinforce and augment the allegations of the principal pleading and must co-exist with it; they cannot supplant the original. Under Rule 10, Section 6 of the Rules of Court, the contents of a supplemental pleading must deal with transactions, occurrences, or events that took place after the date of the pleading it seeks to supplement.

• "In criminal actions, it is a fundamental rule that venue is jurisdictional. Thus, the place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction."
• "In order to obviate controversies as to the venue of the criminal action for written defamation, the complaint or information should contain allegations as to whether, at the time the offense was committed, the offended party was a public officer or a private individual and where he was actually residing at that time. Whenever possible, the place where the written defamation was printed and first published should likewise be alleged. That allegation would be a sine qua non if the circumstance as to where the libel was printed and first published is used as the basis of the venue of the action."

• Agbayani v. Sayo, 89 SCRA 699 (1979) — Followed. Summarized the rule that to avoid venue controversies in libel cases, the information must allege the offended party's status (public or private), actual residence at the time of the offense, and the place of printing/first publication.
• Uy v. Court of Appeals, 276 SCRA 367 (1997) — Followed. Established that jurisdiction in criminal cases is acquired only if the offense was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, and is determined by the allegations in the information.
• Urbano v. Chavez, 183 SCRA 347 (1990) — Followed. Clarified that the OSG takes over a criminal case only after it has reached the appellate courts.

• Article 360, Revised Penal Code — Prescribes the specific venues for filing criminal and civil actions for written defamation: where the libelous article is printed and first published, or where the offended party actually resides at the time of the offense. Applied to require strict allegation of these jurisdictional facts in the Information, the absence of which deprived the RTC of jurisdiction.
• Rule 10, Section 6, Rules of Court — Governs supplemental pleadings, requiring them to set forth events occurring after the date of the pleading supplemented. Applied to reject Del Rosario's affidavit, which pertained to pre-existing facts and was improperly used to supplant the Information's allegations.
• Rule 41, Section 9, Rules of Court — Provides that the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of appeals and the expiration of the time to appeal of other parties. Applied to uphold the public and private prosecutors' filing of the notice of appeal before the trial court lost jurisdiction.

Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Tinga.