View full case

VICENTE FOZ v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

The petitioners, Vicente Foz, Jr. and Danny G. Fajardo, were charged with libel for writing and publishing an article in a daily publication, the Panay News, which allegedly tarnished the reputation of Dr. Edgar Portigo, a physician in Iloilo City. The article accused Dr. Portigo of negligence as a company physician and of causing the death of a patient through improper medical treatment. After pleading not guilty, the petitioners were found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). They were later denied their motion for reconsideration and decided to appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC's decision and denied their motion for reconsideration. Unsatisfied, the petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court (SC), claiming that the article was privileged communication and lacked malice in its publication. They also argued that Fajardo, as the editor and publisher, should not be held responsible for the crime of libel. The Solicitor General argued that only errors of law were reviewable by the SC in a petition for review on certiorari. The accused filed a reply, asserting that the issues raised did not require the evaluation of evidence and also questioning the sufficiency of the allegations in the information charging them with libel. The SC took note of the accused's assertion that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over the offense charged and referred to a previous ruling that an objection based on lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether petitioners can raise for the first time the issue of jurisdiction over the offense charged in their Reply filed before the Court.

  2. Whether the RTC of Iloilo City, Branch 23, had jurisdiction over the offense of libel as charged in the Information.

  3. Whether the libel case should be filed in the province or city where the libelous article was printed and first published

  4. Whether the libel case should be filed in the province where the accused actually resided at the time of the commission of the offense

  5. Whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City had jurisdiction over the libel case.

RULING:

  1. The Court finds that petitioners are not precluded from raising the issue of jurisdiction over the offense charged for the first time in their Reply filed before the Court.

  2. The Court finds merit in the petition and rules that the RTC of Iloilo City, Branch 23, did not have jurisdiction over the offense of libel as charged in the Information.

  3. The libel case should be filed in the province or city where the libelous article was printed and first published if the accused is a private individual at the time of publication.

  4. The libel case may also be filed in the province where the accused actually resided at the time of the commission of the offense, if the accused is a private individual.

  5. The RTC of Iloilo City did not have jurisdiction over the libel case. The court held that jurisdiction over a criminal case is determined by the allegations of 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. In this case, the information failed to allege the venue requirements for a libel case under Article 360. Therefore, the RTC of Iloilo City lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The decision of the RTC convicting the petitioners of the crime of libel is set aside for want of jurisdiction, and the case is dismissed without prejudice to its filing with the court of competent jurisdiction.

PRINCIPLES:

  • An objection based on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the offense charged may be raised or considered motu proprio by the court at any stage of the proceedings or on appeal.

  • Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal case cannot be conferred upon the court by the accused, by express waiver or otherwise, since such jurisdiction is conferred by the sovereign authority which organized the court, and is given only by law in the manner and form prescribed by law.

  • Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction, and 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.

  • The jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. 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.

  • Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code provides the specific rules as to the venue in cases of written defamation. The criminal action and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published, or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense.

  • The venue of a libel case filed by a private individual against a private individual is governed by Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code.

  • The venue can be in the province or city where the libelous article was printed and first published.

  • Alternatively, the venue can be in the province where the accused actually resided at the time of the commission of the offense.

  • Allegations in the Information should sufficiently establish the venue of the libel case. Mere circulation of the publication in a particular place does not establish that it was printed and first published there.

  • The residence of a person refers to their actual physical habitation or place of abode where they reside with continuity and consistency.

  • Jurisdiction over a criminal case is determined by the allegations of 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.

  • Pursuit of business in a place does not constitute residence there for purposes of venue. Residence involves actual bodily presence in the place, combined with a freely exercised intention of remaining there permanently or for an indefinite time.