FOZ vs PEOPLE

CASE: Before the court is a petition for review on certiorari assailing Decision of Cebu
City CA which affirmed Iloilo City RTCs Decision finding petitioners guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of libel Also assailed is the CA Resolution denying
petitioners! motion for reconsideration
FACTS:
Based on the information "#ctober $%& $''() before the Iloilo RTC& *o+ and
*a,ardo& a columnist and editor-publisher of .anay /ews& a daily publication with
a considerable circulation in the City of Iloilo and throughout the region& imputed
to one Dr .ortigo that he is not doing well in his obligation as a physician in the
0ocal 1an 2iguel Corp #ffice "on 12C employees)3 that he is not doing well in
his sworn obligation in loo4ing after the health problems of the employees
Dr .ortigo was portrayed as wanting in high sense of professional integrity& trust
and responsibility e5pected of him as a physician& which imputation and
insinuation as both accused 4new were entirely false and malicious and without
foundation in fact and therefore highly libelous& offensive and derogatory to the
good name& character and reputation of the said Dr 6dgar .ortigo
.etitioners pleaded not guilty& but the RTC found them guilty as charged& and
sentenced them "72& $D Arresto 2ayor to $8& 92& :$D .rision Correccional) and
$;;; fine each
.etitioners 2R was denied They appealed to CA but their appeal and their 2R
were denied <ence& this petition .etitioners raise for the first time the issue that
the information charging them with libel did not contain allegations sufficient to
vest ,urisdiction in the RTC of Iloilo City
ISSUE: whether or not the RTC of Iloilo City& Branch :7& had ,urisdiction over the
offense of libel as charged in the Information dated #ctober $%& $''(
HELD: .etition granted CA Decision set aside on the ground of lac4 of ,urisdiction on
the part of RTC Iloilo Case dismissed without pre,udice
RATIO DECIDENDI:
In Fukuzume v. People, an ob,ection based on the ground that the court lac4s
,urisdiction over the offense charged may be raised or considered motu proprio
by the court at any stage of the proceedings or on appeal 65ception is that in
Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, wherein the defense of lac4 of ,urisdiction by the court
which rendered the =uestioned ruling was considered to be barred by laches
>enue in criminal cases is an essential element of ,urisdiction *or ,urisdiction to
be ac=uired by courts in criminal cases the offense should have been committed
or any one of its essential ingredients too4 place within the territorial ,urisdiction
of the court the jurisdiction of court over the cri!in" cse is deter!ined
#$ the ""e%tions in the co!&"int or infor!tion' And once it is so sho(n)
the court !$ v"id"$ t*e co%ni+nce of the cse' <owever& if the evidence
adduced during the trial show that the offense was committed somewhere else&
the court should dismiss the action for want of ,urisdiction
According to Article 7?; of the R.C and in the case of Agbayani v. Sayo, the
rules on venue in cases of written defamations were as follows:
$ @hether the offended party is a public official or a private person& the criminal
action may be filed in the Court of *irst Instance of the province or city where the
libelous article is printed and first published
: If the offended party is a private individual& the criminal action may also be filed
in the Court of *irst Instance of the province where he actually resided at the time
of the commission of the offense
7 If the offended party is a public officer whose office is in 2anila at the time of
the commission of the offense& the action may be filed in the Court of *irst
Instance of 2anila
( If the offended party is a public officer holding office outside of 2anila& the
action may be filed in the Court of *irst Instance of the province or city where he
held office at the time of the commission of the offense
Applying the foregoing law to this case& since Dr .ortigo is a private individual at
the time of the publication of the alleged libelous article& the venue of the libel
case may be in the province or city where the libelous article was printed and first
published& or in the province where Dr .ortigo actually resided at the time of the
commission of the offense
The allegations in the Information that APanay News& a daily publication with a
considerable circulation in the City of Iloilo and throughout the regionA only
showed that Iloilo was the place where Panay News was in considerable
circulation but did not establish that the said publication was printed and first
published in Iloilo City
The Information filed against petitioners failed to allege the residence of Dr
.ortigo @hile the Information alleges that ADr 6dgar .ortigo is a physician and
medical practitioner in Iloilo City&A such allegation did not clearly and positively
indicate that he was actually residing in Iloilo City at the time of the commission
of the offense It is possible that Dr .ortigo was actually residing in another
place