Tuzon vs. Hon. Cesar Cruz

TOPIC Transitory Offense
CASE NO. G.R. No. L-27410

CASE NAME Tuzon v The Hon. Cesar Cruz
MEMBER Rando Torregosa
DOCTRINE
1. TRANSITORY OFFENSE – Cases can be filed in any court where offense or any of the
ingredient thereof took place. Section 14, Rule 110 of the RoC provides that in all criminal
prosecutions the action shall be instituted and tried in the court or of the municipality or province
wherein the offense was committed or any one of the essential ingredients thereof took place. In
this case, the deceitful manipulations of false pretenses employed by the accused have been
perpetrated in QC; this fact does not preclude the initiation of the action in Mandaluyong City
because the damage was consummated there. Deceit and damage are basic elements of Estafa.
2. TRANSITORY OFFENSE; Venue – Where one essential element of the crime took place in one
province and another element took place in another, the courts of either province has jurisdiction
to try the case, it being understood that the first court taking cognizance of the case will exclude
the other.
RECIT-READY DIGEST
This case is a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition. The controversy of which the actions arose from is the
respondent-Judge’s denial of the Motion to Quash filed by the petitioner Diana Tuzon. Diana Tuzon filed
the Motion to Quash complaint of Estafa grounded on the alleged lack of Jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial
Court of Mandaluyong. The contention was due to the fact that in the complaint filed by the LYRIC PIANO
CENTER, it was alleged that while the DECEIT was perpetrated in Quezon City, the DAMAGE was
actually consummated in MANDALUYONG. The petitioners contend that the latter MTC has no
jurisdiction over the crime. Respondent Judge denied this Motion to Quash and the subsequent Motion for
Reconsideration. The case is now at Bar.
The Supreme Court held that the current offense charged is a Transitory Offense and the prevailing theory
is that the case could be filed either in Quezon City or in Rizal. A person charged with a transitory
offense may be tried in any jurisdiction where the offense is in part committed. Deceit and Damage
are the essential ingredients of Estafa, therefore the action could be filed in either Mandaluyong or Quezon
City. It is also understood that the first court that takes cognizance of the case, excludes the other
courts of the provinces of which the other essential elements may have been committed in.
Wherefore, the petition was denied.
FACTS
• Petitioner Dina Tuzon filed the Special Civil Actions of Certiorari and Prohibition, praying for the
annulment of the order of the Municipal Trial Court of Mandaluyong Rizal, the latter denying the
Motion to Quash the complaint of Estafa against her.
• The facts are as follows; in the Municipality of Mandaluyong, the accused unwillingly and
feloniously defrauded LYRIC PIANO CENTER in the amount of P1,900 by falsely pretending to
be a representative of a certain Carlos Rivera. The accused then executed a fictitious contract which
prejudiced the LYRIC PIANO CENTER, the latter sustaining damage.
• Petitioner alleges that in the complaint submitted by the original complainants (I’m assuming Lyric
Piano?); while the alleged deceit was perpetrated at Quezon City, the payment of the consideration
to the accused (the DAMAGE) was consummated at Mandaluyong.
1
• Petitioner then filed a Motion to Quash the complaint on the grounds that the estafa was committed
outside the territory of the MTC of Mandaluyong; which the respondent judge then denied.
• Case is now at bar.
ISSUE/S and HELD

1. Whether or not the case was properly filed in Mandaluyong? YES
RATIO
1. First of all, the Municipal Trial Court of Mandaluyong could conduct the preliminary investigation
because an essential ingredient of the estafa charge, which was the actual payment to the accused
of the amount swindled, took place in Mandaluyong or in the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial
Court judge. Rule 110 section 14 states that (a) in all Criminal prosecutions the action shall be
instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province wherein the offense was committed
or any one of the essential ingredients thereof took place.
2. To determine whether the above is committed in the court’s jurisdiction, the allegations in the
complaint are controlling.
3. The possibility that the deceitful manipulations or false pretenses employed by the accused might
have been perpetrated in QC does not preclude the institution of criminal action in Mandaluyong
where the damage was consummated. Deceit and damage are essential requisites for Estafa.
4. The estafa committed in this case appears to be a transitory or continuing offense. It could be
filed either in Quezon City or in Rizal. The theory is that a person charged with a transitory
offense may be tried in any jurisdiction where the offense is in part committed.
5. In transitory offenses, in which some acts material and essential to the crime and requisite to its
consummation occur in one province and some in another, the court of either province has
jurisdiction to try the case, it being understood that the first court taking the cognizance of
the case will exclude the others.
DISPOSTIVE PORTION
Wherefore the petition is denied without prejudice to a new preliminary investigation being conducted by
the incumbent municipal judge of Mandaluyong.
Other notes
Not important to our class but the reason as to why there is a new preliminary investigation in the
Dispositive Portion is that respondent judge should have inhibited himself from investigating the case
because he is listed as witness in the complaint. He should have displayed the cold neutrality of an impartial
judge.

Tuzon vs. Hon. Cesar Cruz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tuzon vs. Hon. Cesar Cruz

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Tuzon vs. Hon. Cesar Cruz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TOPIC Transitory Offense

CASE NO. G.R. No. L-27410

Wherefore, the petition was denied.

ISSUE/S and HELD

You might also like