G.R. No. 209859. June 5, 2017.

EILEEN P. DAVID, petitioner, vs. GLENDA S. MARQUEZ, respondent.

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Venue; Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of
jurisdiction.—Indeed, venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction. As explained by this
Court in the case of Foz, Jr. v. People, 603 SCRA 124 (2009): It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction
to be acquired by courts in criminal cases, the offense should have been committed or any one of its
essential ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Territorial jurisdiction in
criminal cases is the territory where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense
allegedly committed therein by the accused. Thus it cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with
an offense allegedly committed outside of that limited territory. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court
over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. And once it is so
shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case. However, if the evidence adduced during the
trial show that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want
of jurisdiction. (emphasis ours) Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: SEC.
15. Place where action is to be instituted.—a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be
instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the offense was committed or
where any of its essential ingredients occurred.

Same; Same; Same; Illegal Recruitment; Section 9 of Republic Act (RA) No. 8042 fixed an alternative
venue from that provided in Section 15(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, i.e., a criminal action
arising from illegal recruitment may also be filed where the offended party actually resides at the time of
the commission of the offense and that the court where the criminal action is first filed shall acquire
jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts.—Sec. 9 of RA No. 8042, however, fixed an alternative venue
from that provided in Section 15(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, i.e., a criminal

_______________

*  THIRD DIVISION.

531

VOL. 825, JUNE 5, 2017

531

David vs. Marquez

action arising from illegal recruitment may also be filed where the offended party actually resides at the
time of the commission of the offense and that the court where the criminal action is first filed shall
acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts. Despite the clear provision of the law, the RTC of
Manila declared that it has no jurisdiction to try the cases as the illegal Recruitment and Estafa were not
committed in its territory but in Kidapawan City. We are, thus, one with the CA in finding that the RTC of
Manila committed grave abuse of discretion and in fact, a palpable error, in ordering the quashal of the
Informations. The express provision of the law is clear that the filing of criminal actions arising from
illegal recruitment before the RTC of the province or city where the offended party actually resides at
the time of the commission of the offense is allowed. It goes without saying that the dismissal of the
case on a wrong ground, indeed, deprived the prosecution, as well as the respondent as complainant, of
their day in court.

Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Appeals; Double Jeopardy; Generally, the prosecution cannot
appeal or bring error proceedings from a judgment rendered in favor of the defendant in a criminal case
due to the final and executory nature of a judgment of acquittal and the constitutional prohibition
against double jeopardy.—There is no question that, generally, the prosecution cannot appeal or bring
error proceedings from a judgment rendered in favor of the defendant in a criminal case due to the final
and executory nature of a judgment of acquittal and the constitutional prohibition against double
jeopardy. Despite acquittal, however, the offended party or the accused may appeal, but only with
respect to the civil aspect of the decision. This Court has also entertained petitions for certiorari
questioning the acquittal of the accused in, or the dismissal of, criminal cases upon clear showing that
the lower court, in acquitting the accused, committed not merely errors of judgment but also grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a denial of due process, thus rendering
the assailed judgment void. When the order of dismissal is annulled or set aside by an appellate court in
an original special civil action via certiorari, the right of the accused against double jeopardy is not
violated.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The right of offended parties to appeal or question an order of the trial court
which deprives them of due process has always been recognized, the only limitation being that

532

532

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

David vs. Marquez

they cannot appeal any adverse ruling if to do so would place the accused in double jeopardy.—In as
early as the 1989 case of People v. Santiago, 174 SCRA 143, this Court has ruled that a private offended
party can file a special civil action for certiorari questioning the trial court’s order acquitting the accused
or dismissing the case, viz.: In such special civil action for certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court, wherein it is alleged that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
of jurisdiction or on other jurisdictional grounds, the rules state that the petition may be filed by the
person aggrieved. In such case, the aggrieved parties are the State and the private offended party or
complainant. The complainant has an interest in the civil aspect of the case so he/she may file such
special civil action questioning the decision or action of the respondent court on jurisdictional grounds.
In so doing, complainant should not bring the action in the name of the People of Philippines. The action
may be prosecuted in the name of said complainant. (emphasis supplied) Moreover, there have been
occasions when this Court has allowed the offended party to pursue the criminal action on his/her own
behalf, as when there is a denial of due process as in this case. Indeed, the right of offended parties to
appeal or question an order of the trial court which deprives them of due process has always been
recognized, the only limitation being that they cannot appeal any adverse ruling if to do so would place
the accused in double jeopardy.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Due Process; Inasmuch as the dismissal of the charges by the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) was done without regard to due process of law, the same is null and void. It is as if there was
no acquittal or dismissal of the case at all, and the same cannot constitute a claim for double jeopardy.
—Inasmuch as the dismissal of the charges by the RTC was done without regard to due process of law,
the same is null and void. It is as if there was no acquittal or dismissal of the case at all, and the same
cannot constitute a claim for double jeopardy. Also, it is elementary that double jeopardy attaches only
when the following elements concur: (1) the accused is charged under a complaint or information
sufficient in form and substance to sustain their conviction; (2) the court has jurisdiction; (3) the accused
has been arraigned and has pleaded; and (4) he/she is convicted or acquitted, or the case is dismissed
without his/her consent. Thus, as found by the CA, double jeopardy does not attach in this case as the
dismissal was granted upon motion of the

533

VOL. 825, JUNE 5, 2017

533

David vs. Marquez

petitioner. To be sure, no fundamental right of the petitioner was violated in the filing of the petition for
certiorari before the CA by the respondent, as well as the grant thereof by the CA.

Same; Same; Judgments; Procedural Rules and Technicalities; Litigations should, as much as possible, be
decided on their merits and not on sheer technicalities.—Nothing is more settled than the principle that
rules of procedure are meant to be tools to facilitate a fair and orderly conduct of proceedings. Strict
adherence thereto must not get in the way of achieving substantial justice. As long as their purpose is
sufficiently met and no violation of due process and fair play takes place, the rules should be liberally
construed. Liberal construction of the rules is the controlling principle to effect substantial justice. The
relaxation or suspension of procedural rules, or the exemption of a case from their operation, is
warranted when compelling reasons or when the purpose of justice requires it. Thus, litigations should,
as much as possible, be decided on their merits and not on sheer technicalities.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

   Jaso, Dorillo & Associates for petitioner.

   Eduardo E. Francisco for respondent.

TIJAM, J.:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45, assailing the Decision2 dated May 29, 2013
and Resolution3 dated November 6, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-

_______________

1  Rollo, pp. 3-30 with Annexes.

2  Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, and concurred in by Associate Justices Marlene
Gonzales-Sison and Rodil V. Zalameda; id., at pp. 31-40.

3  Id., at pp. 41-42.

534
534

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

David vs. Marquez

G.R. S.P. No. 124839, reinstating the criminal cases of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa against Petitioner
Eileen David.

The Procedural and Factual Antecedents

In a Sinumpaang Salaysay filed before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila, Respondent Glenda
Marquez alleged, among others, that she is a resident of Sampaloc, Manila and that sometime in March
2005, petitioner approached her in Kidapawan City and represented that she could recruit her to work
abroad.4 It was further alleged that petitioner demanded payment of placement fees and other
expenses from the respondent for the processing of the latter’s application, to which the respondent
heeded.5 Respondent’s application was, however, denied and worse, the money that she put out
therefor was never returned.6

In her Counter-Affidavit and Counter Charge, petitioner averred that it was physically impossible for her
to have committed the said acts as she was in Canada at the alleged time of recruitment as evidenced by
the entries in her passport.7 Petitioner further averred that she was never engaged in the recruitment
business.8 The petitioner alleged that the amount deposited in her account was not for her but was just
coursed through her to be given to her friend in Canada who was the one processing respondent’s
application, as evidenced by a certification to that effect issued by the said friend.9 Further, petitioner
argued before the Prosecutor that assuming arguendo that the allegations of recruitment were true, the
case should be filed in Kidapawan City and not in Manila.10

_______________
4   Id., at p. 32.

5   Id.

6   Id.

7   Id.

8   Id.

9   Id., at p. 6.

10  Id., at pp. 31-40.

535

VOL. 825, JUNE 5, 2017

535

David vs. Marquez

On December 9, 2008, two separate Informations were filed against petitioner for Illegal Recruitment
and Estafa, respectively. The accusatory portions thereof read as follows:
 

Criminal Case No. 08-265539

The undersigned accuses EILEEN DAVID of a violation of Article 38(a), P.D. No. 1412, amending certain
provision of Book I, P.D. No. 442, otherwise known as the New Labor Code of the Philippines, in relation
to Article 13(b) and (c) of said code, as further amended by P.D. Nos. 1693, 1920, and 2018 and as
further amended by Sec. 6(a), (l) and (m) of Republic Act 8042, committed as follows:

That sometime in the month of March, 2005, in

the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused representing herself to have the capacity to contract,
enlist and transport Filipino workers overseas, particularly in

Canada, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, for a fee, recruit and promise employment/job
placement to GLENDA S. MARQUEZ without first having secured the required license from the
Department of Labor and Employment as required by law, and charged or accepted directly or indirectly
from said complainant the amount of P152,670.00 as placement/processing fee in consideration for her
overseas employment, which amount is in excess of or greater than that specified in the schedule of
allowable fees prescribed by the POEA, and without valid reasons failed to actually deploy her and
continuously fail to reimburse expenses incurred by her in connection with her documentation and
processing for purposes of her deployment.

Contrary to law.11

_______________

11  Id., at pp. 71-72.

 
536

536

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

David vs. Marquez

Criminal Case No. 08-265540

The undersigned accuses EILEEN P. DAVID of the crime of Estafa, Art. 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal
Code, committed as follows:

That on or about and during the period comprised between March 8, 2005 and April 20, 2007, inclusive,
in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously defraud GLENDA S. MARQUEZ in the following manner, to wit: the said accused, by means of
false manifestations and fraudulent representations which she made to said GLENDA S. MARQUEZ prior
to and even simultaneous with the commission of the fraud, to the effect that she had the power and
capacity to recruit and employ said GLENDA S. MARQUEZ for overseas employment in Canada as Live-in
Caregiver, and could facilitate the processing of the pertinent papers if given the necessary amount to
meet the requirements thereof, induced and succeeded in inducing the said GLENDA S. MARQUEZ to
give and deliver, as in fact she gave and delivered to said accused the total amount of Php152,670.00,
on the strength of said manifestations and representations, said accused well knowing that the same
were false and fraudulent and were made solely to obtain, as in fact, she did obtain the said amount of
Php152,670.00, which amount once in her possession, with intent to defraud, misappropriated,
misapplied, and converted to her own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of said
GLENDA S. MARQUEZ in the aforesaid amount of Php152,670.00, Philippine Currency.

Contrary to law.12
 

The Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On December 11, 2008, warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner.

_______________

12  Id., at p. 73.

537

VOL. 825, JUNE 5, 2017

537

David vs. Marquez

On April 15, 2009, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Information13 in Criminal Case No. 08-265540,
arguing that she was deprived of her right to seek reconsideration or reinvestigation of the public
prosecutor’s resolution as she was not furnished a copy thereof.14 Also, petitioner argued that the City
Prosecutor of Manila had no jurisdiction over the case as the alleged crime was committed in Kidapawan
City.
In an Order15 dated May 13, 2011 in Criminal Case No. 08-265540, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Manila, Branch 55, denied petitioner’s Motion to Quash, ruling that the ground relied upon by the
petitioner in the said motion is not one of those enumerated under Section 3,16 Rule 117 of the Rules of

_______________

13  Id., at pp. 74-87.

14  RTC of Manila, Branch 55 Order dated May 13, 2011, penned by Judge Armando A. Yanga, id., at p.
110.

15  Id., at pp. 110-111.

16  SEC. 3. Grounds.—The accused may move to quash the complaint or information on any of the
following grounds:

(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;

(b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged;

(c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused;

(d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so;

(e) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form;

(f) That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is
prescribed by law;
(g) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;

(h) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and

(i) That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case
against

538

538

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

David vs. Marquez

Court for quashing a complaint or information.17 As to the jurisdictional issue, the RTC ruled that it has
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case, citing Section 9 of Republic Act No. 804218 (RA 8042), which
explicitly states that:

A criminal action arising from illegal recruitment as defined herein shall be filed with the Regional Trial
Court of the province or city where the offense was committed or where the offended party actually
resides at the time of the commission of the offense x x x. (underscoring supplied for emphasis)19

Since complainant is a resident of Manila, the RTC ruled that the second ground interposed by the
petitioner is devoid of merit.20 Thus:
In view of the foregoing, the Motion to Quash is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.21

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration22 of the said Order alleging that she just found out that
there were two Informations filed against her, one for Illegal Recruitment in Criminal Case No. 08-
26553923 and another for Estafa24 in Criminal Case No. 08-265540. Petitioner maintained that the
alleged crimes were committed in Kidapawan City, not in Manila as alleged in the Informations.
Petitioner further

_______________

him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.

17  Rollo, p. 110.

18  The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.

19  Rollo, p. 111.

20  Id.

21  Id.

22  Id., at pp. 112-118.

23  Not 08-265540 as alleged in the Motion to Quash.

539

VOL. 825, JUNE 5, 2017

539

David vs. Marquez

alleged that there is no showing that respondent is an actual resident of Manila but as per her Reply-
Affidavit, Manila is merely her postal address.25 Hence, petitioner again raised a jurisdictional issue in
the said motion.26

In an Order27 dated January 26, 2012, this time in Criminal Cases Nos. 08-265539-40, the RTC
reconsidered its May 13, 2011 Order, finding that it had no jurisdiction to try the cases since the crimes
of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa were not committed in its territory but in Kidapawan City, thus:

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby GRANTED.
The Order of this Court dated May 13, 2011 is hereby RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE.

This case is ordered returned to the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court for proper
disposition.

SO ORDERED.28

 
On the same date, the RTC also issued an Order29 recalling the warrants of arrest issued against the
petitioner, thus:

Considering that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction over the above entitled cases, the Order of this
Court dated December 11, 2008, pertaining to the issuance of Warrants of Arrest against herein accused
is hereby cancelled (and) set aside.

WHEREFORE, let the Warrants of Arrest issued in these cases be ordered RECALLED AND SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.30

_______________

25  Id., at p. 114.

26  Id.

27  Id., at pp. 119-120.

28  Id.

29  Id., at p. 121.

30  Id.

540
540

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

David vs. Marquez

Respondent, through the public prosecutor, then filed a Motion for Reconsideration31 of the said Order,
averring that while it appears in the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) pro forma
complaint-affidavit that the alleged recruitment activities took place in Kidapawan City, it also appears in
her Reply-Affidavit, that she deposited certain amounts in several banks in Manila for the name and
account of petitioner as payments for employment processing and placement fees.32 Thus, part of the
essential elements of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa took place in Manila.33 Section 9 of RA 8042, above
quoted, which states that an illegal recruitment case may also be filed with the RTC of the province or
city where the offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of the crime, was likewise
invoked in the said motion.34 Respondent averred that the records show that at the time of the incident
up to the present, she resides in Sampaloc, Manila.35

Petitioner filed an Opposition36 to the said motion. Respondent, through the public prosecutor, filed a
Comment37 thereon and a Reply38 was then filed by the petitioner.

In an Order39 dated March 16, 2012, the RTC denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration, ruling
that as stated in respondent’s Sinumpaang Salaysay, the essential elements of Illegal Recruitment and
Estafa took place in Kidapawan City and not in Manila. The allegation that several deposits for the
payment of the placement fees were made in Manila is of no moment, according to the RTC, considering
that the main

_______________

31  Id., at pp. 122-123.

32  Id., at p. 122.

33  Id.
34  Id.

35  Id.

36  Id., at pp. 124-128.

37  Id., at pp. 129-131.

38  Id., at pp. 132-140.

39  Id., at pp. 139-140.

541

VOL. 825, JUNE 5, 2017

541

David vs. Marquez

transaction actually took place in Kidapawan City, which is the basis for determining the jurisdiction of
the court. Thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Prosecution is
hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Orders of the Court both dated January 26, 2012 still stand.

SO ORDERED.40

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Undaunted, respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA.

In its assailed Decision, the CA discussed, first, the issue of respondent’s legal personality to file the said
petition and second, the RTC’s jurisdiction over the case.41

On the first issue, the CA ruled that while it is only the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) that may
represent the People or the State in criminal proceedings before this Court or the CA, the private
offended party retains the right to bring a special civil action for certiorari in his/her own name in
criminal proceedings before the courts of law.42 The CA cited Section 1, Rule 122, which provides that
the right to appeal from a final judgment or order in a criminal case is granted to any party except when
the accused is placed thereby in double jeopardy.43 It also cited this Court’s ruling that the word party
in the said provision must be understood to mean not only the government and the accused, but also
other persons who may be affected by the judgment rendered in the criminal proceeding.44 The private
complainant, having an interest in the civil aspect of the case, thus, may file such

_______________

40  Id.

41  Id., at pp. 31-40.

42  Id., at p. 37.
43  Id., at p. 36.

44  Id.

542

542

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

David vs. Marquez

action in his/her name to question the decision or action of the respondent court on jurisdictional
grounds.45 In line with this, the CA also ruled that there is no double jeopardy in this case as the charges
were dismissed upon motion of the petitioner-accused.46

As to the issue on jurisdiction, the CA ruled that the RTC has jurisdiction over the cases of Illegal
Recruitment and Estafa, citing Section 9 of RA 8042, which provides that a criminal action arising from
illegal recruitment may be filed in the place where the offended party actually resides at the time of the
commission of the offense.47 According to the CA, it was established that herein respondent was
residing in Sampaloc, Manila at the time of the commission of the crimes.48 Therefore, the two (2)
Informations herein were correctly filed with the RTC of Manila, pursuant to Section 9 of RA 8042.49 The
CA disposed, thus:

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The assailed Order dated January 26, 2012 and
Resolution dated March 16, 2012 of the RTC, Manila, in Criminal Case No. 08-265539 for estafa and
Criminal Case No. 08-265540 for illegal recruitment respectively, are NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. The
cases are REINSTATED and REMANDED to the court of origin for appropriate proceedings.
SO ORDERED.50

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated November 6, 2013,
thus:

_______________

45  Id., at p. 37.

46  Id.

47  Id., at p. 39.

48  Id.

49  Id.

50  Id., at pp. 39-40.

543

VOL. 825, JUNE 5, 2017

543
David vs. Marquez

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.51

Hence, this Petition.

Petitioner argues that the CA committed a reversible error and grave abuse of discretion in declaring
that the respondent had the legal personality to assail the dismissal of the criminal cases as respondent
is not the proper party to do so.52 Petitioner argues that the OSG is the appellate counsel of the People
of the Philippines in all criminal cases and as such, the appeal in the criminal aspect should be taken
solely by the State and the private complainant is limited only to the appeal of the civil aspect.53
According to the petitioner, respondent’s action before the CA does not concern the civil aspect of the
case but the validity of the RTC’s Orders.54

On the jurisdictional issue, the petitioner maintains that the RTC of Manila has no jurisdiction over the
cases as the alleged acts constituting the crimes charged were committed in Kidapawan City and not in
Manila.55

For her part, respondent argues that the argument as regards her legal personality in filing the petition
for certiorari before the CA reveals that petitioner misunderstood the difference between an appeal and
a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.56 In fact, respondent agrees with
the petitioner that only the State, through the OSG, may file an appeal in a criminal case.57 As an appeal
is not available for a private complainant in a criminal case, an

_______________

51  Id., at p. 42.

52  Id., at p. 16.
53  Id.

54  Id., at p. 19.

55  Id., at p. 23.

56  Comment, id., at pp. 184-191.

57  Id., at p. 186.

544

544

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

David vs. Marquez

independent action through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, therefore, is available to the said
aggrieved party.58

Anent the jurisdictional issue, respondent again invokes Section 9 of RA 8042 which allows the filing of
an action arising from illegal recruitment with the RTC of the complainant’s residence.59 The
respondent further argues that as regards the charge of Estafa, considering that the same arose from
the illegal recruitment activities, the said provision allows the filing thereof with the court of the same
place where the Illegal Recruitment case was filed.60 Besides, according to the respondent, since one of
the essential elements of Estafa, i.e., damage or prejudice to the offended party, took place in Manila, as
the offended party resides in Manila, the RTC of Manila has jurisdiction over the Estafa case.61

Issues

1) Does the RTC of Manila have jurisdiction over the cases of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa?

2) Does the respondent, on her own, have legal personality to file the petition for certiorari before the
CA?

The Court’s Ruling

The issues shall be discussed ad seriatim.

_______________

58  Id.

59  Id., at p. 188.

60  Id.
61  Id.

545

VOL. 825, JUNE 5, 2017

545

David vs. Marquez

The RTC of Manila has jurisdiction

over the cases of Illegal Recruitment

and Estafa

Indeed, venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction.62 As explained by this Court in
the case of Foz, Jr. v. People:63

It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases, the offense should
have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction
of the court. Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the court has jurisdiction to
take cognizance or to try the offense allegedly committed therein by the accused. Thus it cannot take
jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense allegedly committed outside of that limited territory.
Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the
complaint or information. And once it is so shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case.
However, if the evidence adduced during the trial show that the offense was committed somewhere
else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.64 (emphasis ours)

Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

SEC. 15. Place where action is to be instituted.—a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall
be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or

_______________

62  Navaja v. De Castro, G.R. No. 182926, June 22, 2015, 759 SCRA 487.

63  618 Phil. 120; 603 SCRA 124 (2009).

64  Id.

546

546

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

David vs. Marquez

At the risk of being repetitive, Sec. 9 of RA 8042, however, fixed an alternative venue from that provided
in Section 15(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, i.e., a criminal action arising from illegal recruitment
may also be filed where the offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense
and that the court where the criminal action is first filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of
other courts.65

Despite the clear provision of the law, the RTC of Manila declared that it has no jurisdiction to try the
cases as the Illegal Recruitment and Estafa were not committed in its territory but in Kidapawan City.66

We are, thus, one with the CA in finding that the RTC of Manila committed grave abuse of discretion and
in fact, a palpable error, in ordering the quashal of the Informations. The express provision of the law is
clear that the filing of criminal actions arising from illegal recruitment before the RTC of the province or
city where the offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense is allowed. It
goes without saying that the dismissal of the case on a wrong ground, indeed, deprived the prosecution,
as well as the respondent as complainant, of their day in court.

It has been found by both the RTC and the CA that the respondent resides in Manila; hence, the filing of
the case before the RTC of Manila was proper. Thus, the trial court should have taken cognizance of the
case, and if it will eventually be shown during trial that the offense was committed somewhere else,
then the court should dismiss the action for want

_______________

65  Sto. Tomas v. Salac, G.R. Nos. 184298-99, November 13, 2012, 685 SCRA 245.

66  Rollo, pp. 119-120.

547

VOL. 825, JUNE 5, 2017

547

David vs. Marquez

of jurisdiction.67 As a matter of fact, the RTC is not unaware of the above cited provision which allows
the filing of the said case before the RTC of the city where the offended party resides at the time of the
commission of the offense; hence, it originally denied petitioner’s Motion to Quash. This Court is, thus,
baffled by the fact that the RTC reversed itself upon the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on the
same ground that it previously invalidated.

Likewise, with the case of Estafa arising from such illegal recruitment activities, the outright dismissal
thereof due to lack of jurisdiction was not proper, considering that as per the allegations in the
Information, the same was within the jurisdiction of Manila. During the preliminary investigation of the
cases, respondent even presented evidence that some of the essential elements of the crime were
committed within Manila, such as the payment of processing and/or placement fees, considering that
these were deposited in certain banks located in Manila.68 Thus, it bears stressing that the trial court
should have proceeded to take cognizance of the case, and if during the trial it was proven that the
offense was committed somewhere else, that is the time that the trial court should dismiss the case for
want of jurisdiction.69

Undoubtedly, such erroneous outright dismissal of the case is a nullity for want of due process. The
prosecution and the respondent as the private offended party were not given the opportunity to
present and prosecute their case. Indeed, the prosecution and the private offended party are as much
entitled to due process as the accused in a criminal case.70

_______________

67  Foz, Jr. v. People, supra note 63.

69  Foz, Jr. v. People, supra note 63.

70  People v. Santiago, G.R. No. 80778, June 20, 1989, 174 SCRA 143.

548

548

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

David vs. Marquez

The respondent has the legal

personality to file a petition

for certiorari under Rule 65.

This procedural issue is not novel. There is no question that, generally, the prosecution cannot appeal or
bring error proceedings from a judgment rendered in favor of the defendant in a criminal case due to
the final and executory nature of a judgment of acquittal and the constitutional prohibition against
double jeopardy.71 Despite acquittal, however, the offended party or the accused may appeal, but only
with respect to the civil aspect of the decision.72
This Court has also entertained petitions for certiorari questioning the acquittal of the accused in, or the
dismissal of, criminal cases upon clear showing that the lower court, in acquitting the accused,
committed not merely errors of judgment but also grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction or a denial of due process, thus rendering the assailed judgment void.73 When the order
of dismissal is annulled or set aside by an appellate court in an original special civil action via certiorari,
the right of the accused against double jeopardy is not violated.74

In as early as the 1989 case of People v. Santiago,75 this Court has ruled that a private offended party
can file a special civil action for certiorari questioning the trial court’s order acquitting the accused or
dismissing the case, viz.:

_______________

71  People v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 183652, February 25, 2015, 751 SCRA 675.

72  Id.

73  People v. Asis, G.R. No. 173089, August 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 250, citing People v. Uy, G.R. No. 158157,
September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 668, 680-681.

74  Id., citing People v. Laguio, Jr., G.R. No. 128587, March 16, 2007, 518 SCRA 393, 408-409.

75  Supra note 70.

549

VOL. 825, JUNE 5, 2017

David vs. Marquez

In such special civil action for certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, wherein it is alleged
that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction or on other
jurisdictional grounds, the rules state that the petition may be filed by the person aggrieved. In such
case, the aggrieved parties are the State and the private offended party or complainant. The
complainant has an interest in the civil aspect of the case so he/she may file such special civil action
questioning the decision or action of the respondent court on jurisdictional grounds. In so doing,
complainant should not bring the action in the name of the People of Philippines. The action may be
prosecuted in the name of said complainant. (emphasis supplied)

Moreover, there have been occasions when this Court has allowed the offended party to pursue the
criminal action on his/her own behalf, as when there is a denial of due process as in this case.76 Indeed,
the right of offended parties to appeal or question an order of the trial court which deprives them of due
process has always been recognized, the only limitation being that they cannot appeal any adverse
ruling if to do so would place the accused in double jeopardy.77

At this juncture, We also uphold the CA’s finding that double jeopardy does not exist in this case.
Inasmuch as the dismissal of the charges by the RTC was done without regard to due process of law, the
same is null and void.78 It is as if there was no acquittal or dismissal of the case at all, and the same
cannot constitute a claim for double jeopardy.79

_______________

76  Ong v. Genio, G.R. No. 182336, December 23, 2009, 609 SCRA 188.

77  Merciales v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124171, March 18, 2002, 379 SCRA 345.

78  Id.
79  Id.

550

550

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

David vs. Marquez

Also, it is elementary that double jeopardy attaches only when the following elements concur: (1) the
accused is charged under a complaint or information sufficient in form and substance to sustain their
conviction; (2) the court has jurisdiction; (3) the accused has been arraigned and has pleaded; and (4)
he/she is convicted or acquitted, or the case is dismissed without his/her consent.80 Thus, as found by
the CA, double jeopardy does not attach in this case as the dismissal was granted upon motion of the
petitioner. To be sure, no fundamental right of the petitioner was violated in the filing of the petition for
certiorari before the CA by the respondent, as well as the grant thereof by the CA.

In fine, the dismissal of the cases below was patently erroneous and as such, invalid for lack of
fundamental requisite, that is, due process.81 For this reason, this Court finds the recourse of the
respondent to the CA proper despite it being brought on her own and not through the OSG.

Besides, such technicality cannot prevail over the more fundamental matter, which is the violation of the
right to due process resulting from the RTC’s patent error. Nothing is more settled than the principle
that rules of procedure are meant to be tools to facilitate a fair and orderly conduct of proceedings.82
Strict adherence thereto must not get in the way of achieving substantial justice.83 As long as their
purpose is sufficiently met and no violation of due process and fair play takes place, the rules should be
liberally construed.84 Liberal construction of the rules is the controlling principle to effect substantial
justice.85 The relaxation or suspension of procedural rules, or the exemption of a case from their
operation, is warranted when compelling reasons or when the pur-

_______________

80  Id.

81  Id.

82  Foz, Jr. v. People, supra note 63.

83  Id.

84  Id.

85  Id.

551

VOL. 825, JUNE 5, 2017

551

David vs. Marquez

In all, since it is established that the RTC of Manila has jurisdiction over the Illegal Recruitment and
Estafa cases, and there being no violation of the double jeopardy doctrine, the prosecution of the case
may still resume in the trial court as held by the CA.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 29, 2013 and
Resolution dated November 6, 2013 of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Bersamin, Reyes and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Notes.—Illegal recruitment is committed by persons who, without authority from the government, give
the impression that they have the power to send workers abroad for employment purposes. (People vs.
Rea, 698 SCRA 191 [2013])

To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that appellant gave complainants the distinct impression
that he had the power or ability to send complainants abroad for work such that the latter were
convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. (Id.)