Section 10- PLACE AND COMMISIION OF THE OFFENSE

General Rule: A complaint or information is sufficient if it appears that the allegations

that the offense was committed or some of its essential ingredients occurred at some
place within jurisdiction of the court.

People vs. Mercado

1. Appeal of the prosecution from an order of Court of First Instance of Candaba
Pamapanga, whereby the court declared itself without jurisdiction of the case
against Francisco Mercado.
2. Francisco Mercado was charged of thief of two large cattle owned by Leon
Ladores.
3. The two cattle was stolen at Gapan, Nueva Ecija and later found in the
possession of Francisco Mercado in Candaba, Pampanga.
4. Leon Ladores file a case of thief in Pampanga alleging that the crime was a
continuing offense.
5. The court dismissed the case on the the basis of lack of jurisdiction.
6. On appeal the supreme court held that the moment Francisco Mercado took the
cattle with intent to gain without permission, and with all the elements of theft
present, consummates the crime and therefore the prosecution should have
been and should commence in Nueva Ecija .
Alfelor vs Intia
1. This is the case of 1965 electoral protest.
2. Felix O. Alfelor and Felix A. Fuentabella both candidate for 2 nd District of Cam Sur
Congressional Election, Felix Alfelor won the election hence the filing of electoral
protest of Fuentabella.
3. Fuentabella filed the case in Tigaon Cam Sur presided by Judge Intia, the
alleged falsification of documents of ballot boxes involved is Precinct in Parucban
Cam Sur, the alleged falsification having taken place in another town Iriga Cam
Sur.
4. The petitioner filed motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction but
Judge Intia insist that his station was vested with jurisdiction and denied the
petion hence the petition for certiorari and prohibition.
5. The petition was granted and order of the dismissal of the complaint for
falsification of public documents against the petitioner s be dismissed.
Reason for the Rule- The necessity and sufficiency of an allegation in an information of
the place of the commission of the offense is for the dual purpose of informing the

defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and fixing the
jurisdiction and venue. In connection, the place of the commission of the crime must be
alleged in the complaint is because the jurisdiction of the court is generally limited to a
well-defined territory so that it may not assume jurisdiction against person charged of an
offense allegedly committed outside of that limited territory.

In People vs Galano, the case of estafa against Gregorio Santos file in Court of City of
Batangas was dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on the basis of the
evidence showing that that the crime was committed in Metro Manila.
INSERT ADDITIONAL INFO OF THE CASE

It is important to remember that when a criminal complaint is presented in the Municipal

Court where the offense was committed , as alleged in the information, the question of
jurisdiction must be passed upon and decided by the Court itself. If the evidence shows
later on that that the crime was committed outside the jurisdiction of the court contrary
to what is written in the information the Court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial
and the complaint or information must be dismissed.

ALLEGATION OF SPECIFIC PLACE, NOT REQUIRED- Under the rule, it is not

required in certain instances, that the complaint or information state with particularity the
place where the crime was committed. Courts may take Judicial notice of political or
geographical subdivisions within its territory.So long as it appears from the allegations
that the offense was committed or some of the essential ingredients thereof occurred at
some place within the jurisdiction of the court, the requirement is already satisfied.

PEOPLE VS PRADO
1. Del Prado appeal from the judgement of Court of First Instance of Zamboanga of
the crime of rape with grave physical injury.
2. In his appeal he contend that the prosecution failed to prove that the crime was
committed in the territory within its courts jurisdiction.
3. The SC dismissed his petition, on the basis that the Court may take judicial
notice as the Barrio of Calarian is in the Municipality of Zamboanga within the
geographical limits of municipality Of Zamboanga.
PEOPLE VS SALICO

1. This is an appeal of provincial fiscal from the order of the Court of First Instance
of Negros Occidental on the dismissal of criminal action against the defendants
charged with homicide on the ground that the fiscal was not able to prove that
the offense was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, or that the
town or Municipality of Victorias in which it was committed is within the province
of Negros Occidental.
2. The Supreme Court held that the lower court erred in in not taking judicial notice
as it ought to the political subdivision or Municipalities. Victorias is within the
province of Negros Occidental and therefore within the jurisdiction of the Court.
3. The case was returned to the lower court and order to proceed the case on the
merits.
EXCEPTION (to the rule) WHWN SPECIFIC PLACE NEED BE AVERRED (VERIFY)When the place of commission of the crime is an essential element of the offense, the
place of commission must be alleged with particularity.

Example of cases:
1. Trespass to dwelling
2. Destructive arson
3. Robbery in an inhabited house, public building or place of worship
THE PLACE MUST BE PLEADED WITH SPECIFICITY

SECTION 11- DATE OF COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE

General rule- It is not required that the complaint or information state with particularity
the DATE of the commission of the crime. It suffices that the allegation approximates or
be as near as the actual date when the offense was committed.
PEOPLE VS ELPEDES
1. Appeal of the decision of conviction of the case of rape against Jose Elpedes
filed by his daughter Alma Elpedes.
2. Elpedes was charged with raping his daughter on Feb. 11, 1997 as per the
information of the complaint but testified the rape was happened on August 11,
1997.
3. Jose Elpedes contended that he can not be convicted on charged where the
evidence shows that that the rape was committed on a date other than indicated
on the information..
4. Cite Section 11

5. The court held that the exact date of the crime of rape is not the essential
element of the crime, in other words, the positive assertions of the victim that he
was raped raped by his father is entitled to greater weight.

US VS DE CASTRO
1. The Defendant Lino De Castro was convicted the offense of bribery as Municipal
President of the town in consideration of considerations of gifts and money, he
permitted opium joints and gambling houses by the Court of First Instance of
Tayabas sentenced to the penalty of four months of arresto mayor and payment
of indemnification of P1,000.00.
2. De Castro filed a petition to dismissed on the ground that the complaint did not
state the date on which the offense was committed nor the person from whom
the accused received the bribe.
3. Although the rime is not the essential element in this case it is required that the
time of the commission of the offense should be stated, and the act should be
alleged to have been committed at some time before filing of the case.
4. The decision of the Lower Court was reversed.
EXCEPTION TO THE RULE- When time is material ingredient in the offense charged, it
becomes mandatory to alleged with precision or particularity.
Infanticide
Election Laws
Law on Gambling
Blue Sunday Law
MUST STATE WITH PARTICULARITY THE PRECISE DATE WHEN THE ACT WAS
COMMITTED
US VS SMITH