Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 37 views

    Isip Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Erwin Sabornido
    The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC of Cavite had proper jurisdiction over the estafa case filed by the complainant against the petitioner spouses. [1] The complainant testified that he met the petitioner spouses through his father and agreed to their business proposal, giving them jewelry in Cavite to sell. [2] When the petitioner spouses later issued checks that bounced, the complainant filed an estafa case in RTC Cavite. [3] The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' ruling that venue was properly in Cavite, as the complainant sufficiently showed the transaction took place there.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Isip Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Erwin Sabornido
    37 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC of Cavite had proper jurisdiction over the estafa case filed by the complainant against the petitioner spouses. [1] The complainant testified that he met the petitioner spouses through his father and agreed to their business proposal, giving them jewelry in Cavite to sell. [2] When the petitioner spouses later issued checks that bounced, the complainant filed an estafa case in RTC Cavite. [3] The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' ruling that venue was properly in Cavite, as the complainant sufficiently showed the transaction took place there.

    Original Title

    Isip vs People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC of Cavite had proper jurisdiction over the estafa case filed by the complainant against the petitioner spouses. [1] The complainant testified that he met the petitioner spouses through his father and agreed to their business proposal, giving them jewelry in Cavite to sell. [2] When the petitioner spouses later issued checks that bounced, the complainant filed an estafa case in RTC Cavite. [3] The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' ruling that venue was properly in Cavite, as the complainant sufficiently showed the transaction took place there.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    37 views1 page

    Isip Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Erwin Sabornido
    The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC of Cavite had proper jurisdiction over the estafa case filed by the complainant against the petitioner spouses. [1] The complainant testified that he met the petitioner spouses through his father and agreed to their business proposal, giving them jewelry in Cavite to sell. [2] When the petitioner spouses later issued checks that bounced, the complainant filed an estafa case in RTC Cavite. [3] The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' ruling that venue was properly in Cavite, as the complainant sufficiently showed the transaction took place there.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    ISIP VS.

    PEOPLE
    G.R. No. 170298, June 26, 20007

    FACTS:

    Complainant Leonardo Jose came to know petitioner spouses when they were introduced by his
    father Nemesio. Nemesio and the Isips were engaged in the buy and sell of pledged and
    unredeemed jewelry pawned by gambling habitués. Since there business is expanding, they
    needed a capitalist, wherein they offered to complainant their plan. Complainant agreed, so he
    gave pieces of jewelries for the Isips to sell at a commission basis. The said jewelries were given
    by complainant in Cavite.

    After sometimes, the Isips issued checks which are not sufficiently funded. Complainant then
    filed a case of estafa against the Isips.

    The RTC of Cavite ruled against the Isips. The Isips contest the decision. The alleged that the
    transaction was done in Manila and not in Cavite since respondent is a resident of Manila. The
    case should then be filed in Manila. The CA affirmed the RTC.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not RTC Cavite has jurisdiction over case.

    HELD:

    The concept of venue of actions in criminal cases, unlike in civil cases, is jurisdictional. The
    place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action but is an
    essential element of jurisdiction.

    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 should have taken
    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 the 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 shows that the offense was
    committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.

    In the case at bar, we, like the RTC and the Court of Appeals, are convinced that the venue was
    properly laid in the RTC of Cavite City. The complainant had sufficiently shown that the
    transaction took place in his ancestral home in Cavite City when he was on approved leave of
    absence from the Bureau of Customs. Since it has been shown that venue was properly laid, it
    is now petitioner’s task to prove otherwise, for it is his claim that the transaction involved was
    entered into in Manila. The age-old but familiar rule that he who alleges must prove his
    allegations applies.

    You might also like