FACTS:

Petitioner Victor C. Agustin, a Philippine Daily Inquirer columnist, was charged with libel for allegedly writing libelous and defamatory articles tending to impeach the character, integrity, virtue and reputation of Anthony De Leon as Acting General Manager of the Baguio Country Club. 

Agustin was arraigned, and pleaded not guilty to all the charges.

Agustin then filed a Motion to Quash the Informations, on the sole ground that the court had no jurisdiction over the offenses charged. He pointed out that the said Informations did not contain any allegation that the offended party, Anthony de Leon, was actually residing in Baguio City, or that the alleged libelous articles were printed and first published in a newspaper of general circulation in Baguio City.

The trial court denied the motion to quash, holding that in the light of the petitioner’s admission that the private complainant was the General Manager of the Baguio Country Club, “it was reasonable to infer therefrom that the private complainant was actually a resident of Baguio City at the time the alleged libelous articles were published.”

The trial court denied the Motion for Reconsideration subsequently filed by Agustin. 

Agustin forthwith filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with a plea for an injunctive relief before the CA.

The CA rendered a decision dismissing the petition.

Agustin filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision, which the appellate court denied for lack of merit.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether the petitioner is guilty of the offenses charged on the premise that the Informations are defective.

RULING:

The petition is meritorious.

Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction. 

The jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or Information, and the offense must have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code provides –

ART. 360. Persons responsible.— Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be responsible for the same.

The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial publication, shall be responsible for the defamations contained therein to the same extent as if he were the author thereof.

No criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation of a crime which cannot be prosecuted de oficio shall be brought except at the instance of and upon complaint expressly filed by the offended party.

Thus, the rules on venue in Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code are as follows:

1. Whether the offended party is a public official or a private person, the criminal action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published.

2. If the offended party is a private individual, the criminal action may also be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province where he actually resided at the time of the commission of the offense.

xxx

To obviate controversies as to the venue of the criminal action from written defamation, the complaint or Information should contain allegations as to whether the offended party was a public officer or a private individual at the time the offense was committed, and where he was actually residing at that time; whenever possible, the place where the written defamation was printed and first published should likewise be alleged.

In this case, the Informations did not allege that the offended party was actually residing in Baguio City at the time of the commission of the offenses, or that the alleged libelous articles were printed and first published in Baguio City. It cannot even be inferred from the allegation “the offended party was the Acting General Manager of the Baguio Country Club and of good standing and reputation in the community” that the private respondent (complainant) was actually residing in Baguio City.

We do not agree with the ruling of the CA that the defects in the Informations are merely formal. Indeed, the absence of any allegations in the Informations that the offended party was actually residing in Baguio City, where the crimes charged were allegedly committed, is a substantial defect. Indeed, the amendments of the Informations to vest jurisdiction upon the court cannot be allowed.