( ALEXANDRA G. SOLEDAD | GO1)
Respondent’s contention: That a denial for a motion to dismiss or
BUAYA V POLO
G.R. No. L-75079| January 26, 1989 |Second Division| Paras, J.
Petitioner- Solemnidad M. Buaya
Respondent: The Hon. Judge Wenceslao M. Polo, Presiding Judge of
Branch XIX RTC of Manila, and Country Bankers Insurance
Corporation
DOCTRINE: Section 14(a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court
provides: 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.
FACTS:
1. Petitioner, Solemnidad Buaya was an insurance agent for private
respondent, Country Bankers Insurance Corp. Under the terms of
agency, it is required for petitioner to make a periodic report and
accounting of her transactions and remit premium collections to
Country Bankers.
2. An audit was done in petitioner’s account to which a showed a
shortage in the amount of P358,850. Private respondent now
files a complaint for estafa against petitioner before the RTC-
Manila, to which Hon. Polo was the presiding judge.
3. Petitioner filed for a motion to dismiss, but it was denied. A
motion for reconsideration was subsequently filed, but it was
also denied. Hence this petition.
4. Petitioner’s contention: The court lacks jurisdiction since she is
based in Cebu and that the funds collected were in Cebu.
5.
to quash are interlocutory and cannot be questioned by
certiorari and be the subject of appeal until final judgment.
ISSUE: Whether the RTC-Manila has jurisdiction over the present
case of estafa.
RULING: YES. Petition is dismissed. The case is remanded to the RTC-
Manila.
HELD: Well settled is the rule that the averments in the complaint
characterize the crime and determines the court to which it must be
tried. The jurisdiction of the court in criminal cases is determined by
the allegations in the complaint and not by the findings of the court
after the trial. At the present case, it is clear that the RTC-Manila has
jurisdiction over the case. Besides, estafa is a continuing crime,
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. The failure of the petitioner to remit
the insurance premiums she collected allegedly caused damage and
prejudice to private respondent in Manila.