Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 164938. August 22, 2005
VICTOR C. AGUSTIN, Petitioners,
vs.
ON. !ERNAN"O VI# PAMINTUAN, $% &$s '()('$t* (s P+,s$-$%g .u-g, o/ t&,
R,g$o%(0 T+$(0 Cou+t o/ 1(gu$o C$t*, 1+(%'& 32 ANTON3 "E #EON (%-
PEOP#E O! TE PI#IPPINES, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CA##E.O, SR., J.4
Before the Court is a petition for revie on certiorari of the Court of !ppeals" #C!$
Decision
%
in C!&'.R. SP No. ()*+, dis-issin. the petition for certiorari and
prohibition filed b/ petitioner Victor C. !.ustin hich, in turn, assailed the Order of
the Re.ional 0rial Court #R0C$ of Ba.uio Cit/, Branch 1, den/in. the -otion to 2uash
the Infor-ations in Cri-inal Case Nos. %(3,+&R to %(3,4&R, for libel.
On 5une %1, +))), the Office of the Cit/ Prosecutor of Ba.uio Cit/, filed four separate
Infor-ations
+
char.in. the petitioner, a Philippine Dail/ In2uirer colu-nist, ith libel.
0he inculpator/ portion of that in Cri-inal Case No. %(3,+&R is 2uoted infra, as
follos6
0hat on or about the %(th da/ of 7arch +))), in the Cit/ of Ba.uio, Philippines, and
ithin the 8urisdiction of this 9onorable Court, the said accused, ith deliberate intent
and -alicious intent and evil -otive of attac:in., in8urin. and i-peachin. the
character, honest/, inte.rit/, virtue and reputation of one !nthon/ De ;eon the actin.
.eneral -ana.er of the Ba.uio Countr/ Club, and as a private citi<en of .ood
standin. and reputation in the co--unit/ and ith -alicious intent of e=posin. the
#sic$ !nthon/ De ;eon to public hatred, conte-pt, ridicule, discredit and dishonor,
ithout an/ 8ustifiable -otive, did then and there illfull/, -aliciousl/ and cri-inall/
prepare or cause to prepare, rite in his colu-n >Coc:tails> and publish in the
Philippine Dail/ In2uirer, a nespaper of .eneral circulation in the Cit/ of Ba.uio and
in the entire Philippines, herein in said colu-n the said accused did then and there
defa-e the co-plainant !nthon/ De ;eon b/ brandin. and i-putin. upon hi- the
folloin. defa-ator/ and libelous state-ents, to it6
"The trysting place between the President Marcos and Hollywood actress Dovie
Beams is not the subject of a high level ta evasion investigation ordered by no less
than the new B!" #ommissioner, Da$ila %onacier&
That bungalow on 'orthwestern (treet had hastily changed hands in the last two
years, and had supposedly been sold to, first )nthony De *eon, the acting general
manager of the eclusive Baguio #ountry #lub, who in turn disposed of it to an
unwitting #hinoy couple&
)ccording to preliminary B!" findings, the transfer to Mr& De *eon is already spurious
since the coo$ De *eon had been missing and had gone +T'T, in 'ew -or$ more
than eight years ago& The spurious sale to the male De *eon who is not related to
the coo$, was necessary to ma$e it appear that it had been an intra.family transfer&
(econd, the Baguio #ountry #lub manager made it appear that he and his family
had been using the house himself, but the B!" had now gotten a certification from
the /reenhills homeowners, association that the said bungalow has all these years
been rented to third parties, the last of which was an )DB eecutive&
The most damaging of the findings was the supposed transfer price of the bungalow
between the De *eons and how much the bungalow was later palmed off to the
#hinese.%ilipino couple&
0e will leave those details for the B!" #ommissioner to announce himself, that, if he
could overcome the tremendous and well.oiled lobbying efforts by De *eon,s
principals&
Tip1 2ne of the principals is a lawyer and self.proclaimed best friend of *enny
+Dragon *ady, de 3esus&"
hich aforesaid defa-ator/, -alicious and libelous ords and state-ents have been
read b/ the personnel of the Ba.uio Countr/ Club, b/ the residents of the Cit/ of
Ba.uio, and b/ the public in the other parts of the countr/, and that those libelous
and defa-ator/ ords and state-ents afore-entioned are untrue, false and
-alicious tendin. to i-peach the character, inte.rit/, virtue and reputation of the said
!nthon/ De ;eon as !ctin. 'eneral 7ana.er of the Ba.uio Countr/ Club, thus,
placin. and causin. said !nthon/ De ;eon to public hatred, conte-pt, dishonor,
discredit and ridicule hich acts are serious and insultin. in nature, to the da-a.e
and pre8udice of the said !nthon/ De ;eon.
1
E=cept for the alle.ed libelous articles, as ell as the dates of the co--ission of the
cri-es char.ed therein, the three other Infor-ations are si-ilarl/ orded.
!.ustin as arrai.ned on Septe-ber %), +))%, and pleaded not .uilt/ to all the
char.es.
?
!.ustin then filed a 7otion to @uash the Infor-ations, on the sole .round that the
court had no 8urisdiction over the offenses char.ed. 9e pointed out that the said
Infor-ations did not contain an/ alle.ation that the offended part/, !nthon/ de ;eon,
1
as actuall/ residin. in Ba.uio Cit/, or that the alle.ed libelous articles ere printed
and first published in a nespaper of .eneral circulation in Ba.uio Cit/.
Private co-plainant De ;eon, throu.h counsel, opposed the -otion, alle.in. that he
as a bona fide resident of the Ba.uio Countr/ Club located at the Countr/ Club
Road, Ba.uio Cit/A he as also the actin. .eneral -ana.er of the club at the ti-e
the alle.ed libelous article as published. 9e e-phasi<ed that the Infor-ations
alle.ed that he as of .ood standin. and reputation in the co--unit/, and that the
ord >co--unit/> -eant Ba.uio Cit/, here he as residin.. 7oreover, !.ustin as
estopped fro- assailin. the court"s lac: of 8urisdiction since he as arrai.ned before
he filed his -otion to 2uash the Infor-ation. Even if it -a/ be assu-ed that there
as so-e a-bi.uit/ in the Infor-ations as to hether he as an actual resident of
Ba.uio Cit/, a-endin. the- ould sufficeA based on the entiret/ of the conte=t and
appl/in. the doctrine of necessar/ i-plication, there can be no other conclusion than
that he as a resident of Ba.uio Cit/.
B/ a/ of Repl/, !.ustin averred that the alle.ations in the Infor-ations #that the
private co-plainant as the actin. .eneral -ana.er of the Ba.uio Countr/ Club and
as a private citi<en of .ood standin. and reputation in the co--unit/$ do not
constitute an alle.ation that the private co-plainant as an actual resident of Ba.uio
Cit/. 9e insisted that to construe the ord >co--unit/> in the Infor-ations to -ean
the co--unit/ in Ba.uio Cit/ ould be to undul/ strain the li-its of a fair
interpretationA there -ust be clear and positive alle.ations in the Infor-ations that
the private co-plainant actuall/ resided in Ba.uio Cit/. 9e ar.ued that he as not
estopped fro- assailin. the court"s 8urisdiction over the cri-es char.ed even after his
arrai.n-ent because lac: of 8urisdiction is a -atter hich can be dealt ith at an/
ti-e.
On 5anuar/ %*, +))+, the trial court issued an Order
4
den/in. the -otion to 2uash,
holdin. that in the li.ht of the petitioner"s ad-ission that the private co-plainant as
the 'eneral 7ana.er of the Ba.uio Countr/ Club, >it as reasonable to infer
therefro- that the private co-plainant as actuall/ a resident of Ba.uio Cit/ at the
ti-e the alle.ed libelous articles ere published.>
!.ustin filed a -otion for reconsideration of the Order, insistin. that the -ere fact
that the private co-plainant as the 'eneral 7ana.er of the Ba.uio Countr/ Club
did not necessaril/ -ean that the latter as actuall/ residin. in Ba.uio Cit/, as it as
also possible that he as actuall/ residin. in a place nearb/. 0he trial court, hoever,
denied the -otion on !pril %, +))+.
!.ustin forthith filed a Petition for #ertiorari and Prohibition ith a plea for an
in8unctive relief before the Court of !ppeals #C!$, clai-in. that the trial court
co--itted a .rave abuse of discretion a-ountin. to lac: or e=cess of 8urisdiction in
den/in. his 7otion to @uash.
On Bebruar/ +?, +))?, the C! rendered a decision dis-issin. the petition. It
disa.reed ith !.ustin, and held that the trial court did not co--it a .rave abuse of
discretion a-ountin. to e=cess or lac: of 8urisdiction in so rulin.. !ccordin. to the
C!, hile the Infor-ations filed b/ the prosecution did not contain alle.ations that the
co-plainant as actuall/ a resident of Ba.uio Cit/ at the ti-e the alle.ed libelous
articles ere printed and first published, and that the alle.ed libelous articles ere
printed and first published in Ba.uio Cit/, such defects ere -erel/ of for- and not
of substance. 0hus, there is no need to 2uash the Infor-ations, as the/ -a/ -erel/
be a-ended pursuant to Section %?, Rule %%) of the Revised Rules of Cri-inal
Procedure, hich provides that >an a-end-ent, either of for- or substance, -a/ be
-ade at an/ ti-e before the accused enters a plea to the char.e, and thereafter, as
to all -atters of for- ith leave of court.>
*
0he C! further ruled that an/ a-end-ent
that ould be -ade to confor- to the private co-plainant"s residenc/ re2uire-ents
ould not place the accused at a disadvanta.e.
!.ustin filed a -otion for reconsideration of the decision, hich the appellate court
denied for lac: of -erit.
(
!.ustin, no the petitioner, insists that the C! erred in dis-issin. his petition
for certiorari and prohibition, it appearin. that the trial court co--itted a .rave abuse
of its discretion in den/in. his 7otion to @uash the Infor-ations, as ell as his
-otion for reconsideration of the trial court"s order den/in. the sa-e.
0he petitioner -aintains that in the absence of an/ alle.ations in the Infor-ations
that the private respondent as actuall/ residin. in Ba.uio Cit/, or that the alle.ed
libelous articles ere printed and first published in Ba.uio Cit/ as -andated b/
!rticle 1*) of the Revised Penal Code, the trial court had no 8urisdiction over the
offenses char.ed. 9e asserts that the a-end-ents of the Infor-ations ould
li:eise be i-proper, considerin. that the defects of the Infor-ations ere not
-erel/ of for- but of substance. 0he petitioner posits that venue in cri-inal cases is
8urisdictional and -andator/A hence, confor-abl/ ith the decisions of the Court
in *ope4 v& #ity 3udge,
3
and)gbayani v& (ayo,
,
the Infor-ations -ust be 2uashed.
In its Co--ent on the petition, the Office of the Solicitor 'eneral #OS'$ -aintains
that the failure of the Infor-ations to alle.e that the private respondent is a resident
of Ba.uio Cit/ #here the Infor-ations ere filed$ is not a 8urisdictional defect. It
asserts that the aver-ent in the Infor-ations that the cri-es char.ed ere
co--itted ithin the 8urisdiction of the trial court in Ba.uio Cit/, ta:en in con8unction
ith the other alle.ations therein, are sufficient to vest 8urisdiction over the sub8ect
cases in the R0C of Ba.uio Cit/.
Bor his part, the private co-plainant reiterated his ar.u-ents in the R0C and in the
C! in his Co--ent on the Petition.
0he threshold issues in the present petition are #%$ hether or not the R0C of Ba.uio
Cit/ has 8urisdiction over the offenses char.ed in the four Infor-ations on the
2
pre-ise that the Infor-ations are defectiveA and #+$ hether the Infor-ations -a/ be
a-ended to cure the said defects.
0he petition is -eritorious.
Venue in cri-inal cases is an essential ele-ent of 8urisdiction.
%)
0he 8urisdiction of a
court over the cri-inal case is deter-ined b/ the alle.ations in the co-plaint or
Infor-ation, and the offense -ust have been co--itted or an/ one of its essential
in.redients too: place ithin the territorial 8urisdiction of the court.
%%
!rticle 1*) of the Revised Penal Code provides C
!R0. 1*). Persons responsible.D !n/ person ho shall publish, e=hibit, or cause the
publication or e=hibition of an/ defa-ation in ritin. or b/ si-ilar -eans, shall be
responsible for the sa-e.
0he author or editor of a boo: or pa-phlet, or the editor or business -ana.er of a
dail/ nespaper, -a.a<ine or serial publication, shall be responsible for the
defa-ations contained therein to the sa-e e=tent as if he ere the author thereof.
0he cri-inal and civil action for da-a.es in cases of ritten defa-ations as provided
for in this chapter, shall be filed si-ultaneousl/ or separatel/ ith the Court of Birst
Instance of the province or cit/ here the libelous article is printed and first published
or here an/ of the offended parties actuall/ resides at the ti-e of the co--ission of
the offenseA Provided, however, 0hat here one of the offended parties is a public
officer hose office is in the Cit/ of 7anila at the ti-e of the co--ission of the
offense, the action shall be filed in the Court of Birst Instance of the Cit/ of 7anila or
of the cit/ or province here the libelous article is printed and first published, and in
case such public officer does not hold office in the Cit/ of 7anila, the action shall be
filed in the Court of Birst Instance or the province or cit/ here he held office at the
ti-e of the co--ission of the offense or here the libelous article is 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 Birst Instance of the province or cit/ here he actuall/
resides at the ti-e of the co--ission of the offense or here the libelous -atter is
printed and first published6 Provided, further, 0hat the civil action shall be filed in the
sa-e court here the cri-inal action is filed and vice versa6 Provided,
furthermore, 0hat the court here the cri-inal action or civil action for da-a.es is
first filed, shall ac2uire 8urisdiction to the e=clusion of other courts6 )nd provided,
finally, 0hat this a-end-ent shall not appl/ to cases of ritten defa-ations, the civil
andEor cri-inal actions to hich have been filed in court at the ti-e of the effectivit/
of this la.
Preli-inar/ investi.ation of cri-inal actions for ritten defa-ations as provided for in
the chapter shall be conducted b/ the provincial or cit/ fiscal of the province or cit/,
or b/ the -unicipal court of the cit/ or capital of the province here such actions -a/
be instituted in accordance ith the provisions of this article.
No cri-inal action for defa-ation hich consists in the i-putation of a cri-e hich
cannot be prosecuted de oficioshall be brou.ht e=cept at the instance of and upon
co-plaint e=pressl/ filed b/ the offended part/.
0hus, the rules on venue in !rticle 1*) of the Revised Penal Code are as follos6
%. Fhether the offended part/ is a public official or a private person, the cri-inal
action -a/ be filed in the Court of Birst Instance of the province or cit/ here the
libelous article is printed and first published.
+. If the offended part/ is a private individual, the cri-inal action -a/ also be filed in
the Court of Birst Instance of the province here he actuall/ resided at the ti-e of the
co--ission of the offense.
1. If the offended part/ is a public officer hose office is in 7anila at the ti-e of the
co--ission of the offense, the action -a/ be filed in the Court of Birst Instance of
7anila.
?. If the offended part/ is a public officer holdin. office outside of 7anila, the action
-a/ be filed in the Court of Birst Instance of the province or cit/ here he held office
at the ti-e of the co--ission of the offense.
%+
E=perience has shon that under the old rule, the offended part/ could harass the
accused in a libel case b/ la/in. the venue of the cri-inal action in a re-ote or
distant places.
%1
0o obviate controversies as to the venue of the cri-inal action fro-
ritten defa-ation, the co-plaint or Infor-ation should contain alle.ations as to
hether the offended part/ as a public officer or a private individual at the ti-e the
offense as co--itted, and here he as actuall/ residin. at that ti-eA henever
possible, the place here the ritten defa-ation as printed and first published
should li:eise be alle.ed.
%?
In this case, the Infor-ations did not alle.e that the offended part/ as actuall/
residin. in Ba.uio Cit/ at the ti-e of the co--ission of the offenses, or that the
alle.ed libelous articles ere printed and first published in Ba.uio Cit/. It cannot even
be inferred fro- the alle.ation >the offended part/ as the !ctin. 'eneral 7ana.er
of the Ba.uio Countr/ Club and of .ood standin. and reputation in the co--unit/>
that the private respondent #co-plainant$ as actuall/ residin. in Ba.uio Cit/.
0he residence of a person is his personal, actual or ph/sical habitation or his actual
residence or place of abode provided he resides therein ith continuit/ and
consistenc/A no particular len.th of ti-e of residence is re2uired. 9oever, the
residence -ust be -ore than te-porar/.
%4
0he ter- residence involves the idea of
so-ethin. be/ond a transient sta/ in the placeA and to be a resident, one -ust abide
in a place here he had a house therein.
%*
0o create a residence in a particular
place, to funda-ental ele-ents are essential6 0he actual bodil/ presence in the
place, co-bined ith a freel/ e=ercised intention of re-ainin. there per-anentl/ or
3
for an indefinite ti-e.
%(
Fhile it is possible that as the !ctin. 'eneral 7ana.er of the
Ba.uio Countr/ Club, the petitioner -a/ have been actuall/ residin. in Ba.uio Cit/,
the Infor-ations did not state that he as actuall/ residin. therein hen the alle.ed
cri-es ere co--itted. It is entirel/ possible that the private co-plainant -a/ have
been actuall/ residin. in another place. One ho transacts business in a place and
spends considerable ti-e thereat does not render such person a resident
therein.
%3
Fhere one -a/ have or on a business does not of itself constitute
residence ithin the -eanin. of the statute. Pursuit of business in a place is not
conclusive of residence there for purposes of venue.
%,
Fe do not a.ree ith the rulin. of the C! that the defects in the Infor-ations are
-erel/ for-al. Indeed, the absence of an/ alle.ations in the Infor-ations that the
offended part/ as actuall/ residin. in Ba.uio Cit/, here the cri-es char.ed ere
alle.edl/ co--itted, is a substantial defect. Indeed, the a-end-ents of the
Infor-ations to vest 8urisdiction upon the court cannot be alloed.
+)
IN #IGT O! TE !OREGOING, the petition is 'R!N0ED. 0he assailed Decision of
the Court of !ppeals in C!&'.R. SP No. ()*+, are SE0 !SIDE. 0he Re.ional 0rial
Court of Ba.uio Cit/, Branch 1, is hereb/ DIREC0ED 0O @G!S9 the Infor-ations
and DIS7ISS the cases a.ainst petitioner Victor C. !.ustin in Cri-inal Case Nos.
%(3,+&R to %(3,4&R.
SO ORDERED.
4