BRAULIO ABALOS, petitioner, G.R. NO.

136994
vs. September 17, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Facts:

On November 11, 1994, an Information for Falsification of Private

Documents was filed against thepetitioner Braulio Abalos (hereinafter referred to
as the accused appellant) before the Municipal Trial Court of Dagupan City.

Thereafter on on December 12, 1994, another Information for Falsification of

Private Document was filed against thepetitioner before the Municipal Trial
Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan.

(Note: RPC Art. 172. Falsification by Private Individuals and use of Falsified Documents. xxx Par 2. Any
person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such damage, shall in any
private document commit any of the acts of falsification.)

During his arraignment before the Dagupan Municipal Trial Court, thepetitioner
plead not guilty and filed a Motion to Quash, arguing that the Municipal Trial
Court had no jurisdiction over the offense charged. Subsequently MTC Dagupan
ordered the quashal of the criminal case for lack of jurisdiction and the
petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was denied

The petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Regional Trial Court of
Dagupan City. however the RTC Dagupan City, issued an Order reversing and
setting aside the Orders of the Municipal Trial Court of Dagupan City.

On the other hand, after the filing of the Information before the Lingayen court,
the petitioner also filed a Motion to Quash x x x. The court a quo denied the
Motion to Quash in, Undaunted, the petitioner went on Certiorari to the Regional
Trial Court of Lingayen,
which rendered a Decision dismissing the Petition for Certiorari for lack of merit.

Twice rebuffed by two different trial courts, petitioner appealed the said cases to
the Court of Appeals. petitioner moved to consolidate the two appeals, which the
Court of Appeals. However, the court of appeals dismissed the petition for Lack
of Merit. The petioner filed for MR once again denied .

Issue:

1. Whether or not, MTCC Dagupan and MTC Lingayen have jurisdiction over the
crimes allegedly committed by petitioner.
2. Whether or not the filing of separate complaints supported by the identical
affidavits and annexes to the informations filed in two courts constitutes forum
shopping.

3. Whether or not the respective informations in Lingayen as well as in Dagupan,

MTCC, were dismissible for multiplicity of offenses merged in one information.

Rule:

1. Yes, the MTC Dagupan and Lingayen have jurisdiction over the crimes
allegedly committed by the petitioner.

This court finds its answer in the case of Alfelor, Sr. vs. Intia, 70 SCRA
480, citing the case of Lopez vs. City Judge, 18 SCRA 616, where the it stated
that:

xxx
It is settled law in criminal actions that the place where the criminal offense was
committed not only determines the venue of the action but is an essential
element of jurisdiction (U.S. v. Pagdayuman, 5 Phil. 265). Thus, under the
provisions of Section 86 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, municipal courts have
original jurisdiction only over criminal offenses committed within their respective
territorial jurisdiction.
xxx

In the Dagupan case, the document involve which is the cash receipts was
issued by the Pangasinan Photostat of Dagupan City. As for the Lingayen case,
it appears that the subject invoices were issued by the Xerox Copying Machine of
Lingayen, Pangasinan

Therefore, it suffices for jurisdiction to vest that the Information alleges that the
crime of falsification, as charged, was committed within the municipality of
Lingayen.

2. No, filing of separate complaints supported by the identical affidavits and

annexes to the information filed in two courts does not constitute non-forum
shopping.

Both MTCC Dagupan and MTC Lingayen have properly assumed jurisdiction
over petitioners criminal cases since these involved different acts of falsification,
Petitioner was charged with five counts of falsification. The first three, concerning
Cash Receipts were allegedly committed in Dagupan. The other two counts were
allegedly committed in Lingayen. that each falsified document constitutes one
separate act of falsification. It is obvious the cases had to filed where the
offenses had been committed, either in Dagupan or in Lingayen. Considering that
five separate offenses of falsification were involved, there can be no forum
shopping.

3. No, respective information in Lingayen as well as in Dagupan, MTCC, is not

dismissible for multiplicity of offenses merged in one information.

As stated a while ago, that five separate offenses of falsification were

involved, there can be no forum shopping. It was erroneous for petitioner to
argue that only one offense was committed. There are as many acts of
falsification as there are documents falsified.