Anda di halaman 1dari 2

AGBAYANI v SAYO o Alleged defamatory documents (Pascual’s and Bautista’s affidavits,

G.R No L- 47880, April 30, 1979, Aquino, J. Bautista’s undated letter for Mahinan’s dismissal, Agbayani’s unusual
incident report) quoted in the information depicted Mahinan “as an
PROVISIONS APPLICABLE: incorrigible managerial misfit, despoiler of public office, spendthrift of
ART. 360, RPC: Persons responsible. — x x x GSIS funds, inveterate gambler, chronice falsifier”, and an “unreformed
The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations as provided ex-convict”.
for in this chapter, shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance of
the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published or where any  The accused’s motion to quash: CFI of Nueva Vizcaya has no jurisdiction
of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense: because Mahinan was a public officer holding office at Isabela (should be CFI of
Provided, however, That where one of the offended parties is a public officer whose Isabela).
office is in the City of Manila at the time of the commission of the offense, the action shall be
filed in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila or of the city or province where the o This was denied by trial court because Mahinan was not a public officer
libelous article is printed and first published, and in case such public officer does not hold office within the meaning of Art. 203, RPC (insurance business of GSIS is not
in the City of Manila, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city an inherently governmental function), so Mahinan’s residence
where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous article is
(Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya) is the criterion for determining the venue of
printed and first published and in case one of the offended parties is a private individual, the
action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he actually criminal action.
resides at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous matter is printed and  Their motion for recon was also denied, so they filed the instant petition for
first published:
certiorari and prohibition to enjoin the prosecution of the libel case on the ground
Provided, further, That the civil action shall be filed in the same court where the
criminal action is filed and vice versa: of improper venue.
Provided, furthermore, That the court where the criminal action or civil action for
damages is first filed, shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts: ISSUES w/ HOLDING & RATIO:
And provided, finally, That this amendment shall not apply to cases of written
defamations, the civil and/or criminal actions to which have been filed in court at the time of the 1. Whether the venue of the criminal action for written defamation is Nueva
effectivity of this law. Vizcaya or Isabela - ISABELA
Preliminary investigation of criminal actions for written defamations as provided for in  Mahinan says: the trial court’s jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the
this chapter shall be conducted by the provincial or city fiscal of the province or city, or by the
municipal court of the city or capital of the province where such actions may be instituted in
information (libel was alleged to be committed in Nueva Vizcaya), so the trial
accord- ance with the provisions of this article. court has jurisdiction
xxx  Art. 360 lays down the rules on venue in cases of written defamation:
o If offended party is a public official or a private person, criminal action
Summary of THE CASE: The case focuses on the venue in cases of libel. may be filed in the CFI of the province/city where the libelous article
Mahinan files a complaint for written defamation against his subordinates. The is printed and first published.
provincial fiscal filed an information for libel in the CFI of Nueva Vizcaya. Mahinan o If offended party is a private individual, it may also be filed in the CFI of
the province where he actually resided at the time of commission
contends that the trial court has jurisdiction because the information alleged that the
of offense.
libel was committed in Nueva Vizcaya. The Court disagrees, saying that Isabela o If offended party is a public officer whose office is in Manila at the time
should be the venue of the criminal action and that the information was deficient. of commission, action may be filed in CFI of Manila.
They relied on Article 360, which lays down the rules on venue in cases of written o If offended party is a public officer holding office outside of Manila, it
defamation and the legislative intent to prevent harassment of the accused. may be filed where he held office at the time of commission of
offense.
FACTS:  Before it was amended, Art. 360 provided that the venue would be the province
wherein the libel was published or circulated. The criminal action is transitory
 Conrado Mahinan (lawyer, manager of GSIS in Isabela) filed a complaint for
and the injured party has a choice of venue.
written defamation against his subordinates (Agbayani, Bautista, Pascual, o This allowed the offended party to harass or inconvenience the
Dugay). accused by laying the venue in a remote/distant place (out-of-town libel
o GSIS Board of Trustees considered Mahinan resigned, but he suits), so RA 4363 was enacted, laying down specific rules as to
appealed to CSC which directed the board to reinstate him. the venue (legislative intent: to prevent harassment of the accused).
 Provincial fiscal of Nueva Vizcaya filed in the CFI there an information for  The preliminary investigation of the criminal action shall be conducted by the
libel. He said the accused maliciously made defamatory imputations against provincial/city fiscal of the province/city where the action may be instituted.
 IN THE CASE: The proper venue of the criminal action is the CFI of Isabela,
Mahinan in Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya.
since Mahinan was a public officer stationed in Isabela and the alleged libel was
committed when he was in public service. The preliminary investigation also
should have been conducted by the provincial fiscal of Isabela.
 As basis for the venue, the complaint/information should allege:
o whether, at the time the offense was committed, the offended party
was a public officer or private individual
o where he was actually residing at that time
o (if possible) where the written defamation was printed and first
published.
 IN THE CASE: It was alleged in the information that the libel was committed in
Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya. It was NOT ALLEGED that, at the time of
commission of libel, Bambang was the actual residence of Mahinan or that it
was where the libel was printed and first published, or where Mahinan held his
office.
o In the alleged defamatory documents, Isabela was indicated as the
place where Mahinan held office and Bambang was not mentioned at
all.
o The trial court even admits that it would have no jurisdiction, since the
venue of action should be Isabela, where Mahinan held office.
o The information is defective or deficient for not showing that the CFI
of Nueva Vizcaya, where it was filed, has jurisdiction over the criminal
action for written defamation and that the provincial fiscal of Nueva
Vizcaya had the authority to conduct the preliminary investigation.
 Venue is an essential element of jurisdiction.

Ruling: WHEREFORE, the trial court's order of April 25, 1977, denying petitioners'
motion to quash is set aside. It is directed to dismiss Criminal Case No. 509, the
libel case against the petitioners, without prejudice to the filing of another criminal
action for written defamation in the Court of First Instance of Isabela within the
remainder of the prescriptive period, if warranted according to the result of a proper
and duly conducted preliminary investigation. Costs against respondent Mahinan.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai