People Vs de Guzman-GR No. 77368

G.R. No.
77368 | October 5, 1993

People of the Philippines, petitioner vs. Actions of the Court:
HON. JOSE C. DE GUZMAN, PRESIDING JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 93, AND SPOUSES DANILO A. ALCANTARA AND RTC: Wherefore, the above-entitled case is hereby QUASHED, without prejudice to the filing
ISABELITA ESGUERRA- , respondent of the corresponding action against the accused in the Court having proper jurisdiction.
Nature of Case:
Petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by the People of the Philippines, The private prosecutor's motion for reconsideration was denied in the court's order.
praying for the reversal, annulment and setting aside of the Order of 28 February
1986 of the respondent Judge, who has ruled in the negative, as well as his Order, SUPREME COURT DECISION
dated 21 March 1986, denying the motion for reconsideration. The petitioner prays
that the respondent Judge be directed to assume jurisdiction over, and to proceed HELD: NO.
with the trial of, the criminal case.
Facts In People vs Ledesma:
 On 09 September 1985, robbery was committed in Quezon City in the house of Jose . . . A "continuous crime" is a single crime consisting of a series ofacts arising from a
L. Obillos, Sr., where various pieces of precious jewelry alleged to be worth single criminal resolution or intent not susceptible of division. According to Cuello Calon,
millions of pesos were taken. An information, dated 30 September 1985, was when the actor, there being unity of purpose and of right violated, commits diverse acts
instituted against the perpetrators in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, each of which, although of a delictual character merely constitutes a partial execution of a
Branch 101, docketed thereat asCriminal Case No. G.R. No. 42078. single particular delict, such concurrence of delictual acts is called a "delito continuado."
 Subsequently, an information, dated 22 October 1985, for violation of Presidential For it to exist there should be plurality of acts performed separately during a period of time;
Decree No. 1612, otherwise known as the "Anti-Fencing Law," was also filed with unity of penal provision infringed upon or violated; unity of criminal intent or purpose,
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 93, docketed as Criminal Case which means that two or more violations of the same penal provision are united in one and
No. 42433, against herein respondent spouses Danilo A. Alcantara and Isabelita the same intent leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim.
Esguerra-Alcantara, from whose possession the jewelries stolen were recovered in
Antipolo, Rizal.. Robbery is the taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain,
 The trial court, acting on the motion to quash filed by the accused [now private by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon
respondents], issued the now questioned order of 28 February 1986. anything. "Fencing", upon the other hand, is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for
 Before the Court is a Motion to Quash, filed by the accused thru counsel, praying himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or
that the information filed against both accused be quashed, on the ground that the shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value
Court has no jurisdiction to try the offense charged. Among others, the motion which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the
alleges, that as per police investigation, the crime took place in Antipolo, Rizal. For crime of robbery or theft.
this reason, Violation of Presidential Decree No. 1612 is an independent crime,
separate and distinct from that of Robbery. The accused claims, likewise, that We are not unaware of a number of instances when the Court would allow a change
jurisdiction to try the same is with the Court within which territorial jurisdiction, of venue in criminal cases "whenever the interest of justice and truth so demand, and there are
the alleged fencing took place. serious and weighty reasons to believe that a trial by the court that originally had jurisdiction
over the case would not result in a fair and impartial trial and lead to a miscarriage of
 The Prosecution filed an opposition thereto, alleging among others, that there
justice." Here, however, we do not see the attendance of such compelling circumstances, nor are
is nothing in the law which prohibits the filing of a case of fencing in the court
we prepared to state that the lower court gravely abused its discretion in its questioned orders.
under whose jurisdiction the principal offense of robbery was committed. The
prosecution claims further, that the consideration in the enactment of PD 1612 was
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari and mandamus is DISMISSED,
to impose a heavier penalty on persons who profit by the effects of the crimes
and the orders appealed from are hereby AFFIRMED.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles
robbery or theft.
virtual law library
 Since the alleged act of fencing took place in Antipolo, Rizal, outside the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court, and considering that all criminal prosecutions must be
instituted and tried in the Municipality or Province where the offense took place,
this Court, necessarily, does not have jurisdiction over the instant case.
ISSUE/S of the CASE:

(a) Whether or not the crime of "fencing" is a continuing offense that could allow the
filing of an information therefor in the place where the robbery or theft is committed
and not necessarily where the property, unlawfully taken is found to have later been
acquired.

People Vs de Guzman-GR No. 77368

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs de Guzman-GR No. 77368

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs de Guzman-GR No. 77368

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

77368 | October 5, 1993

ISSUE/S of the CASE:

You might also like