View full case

EILEEN P. DAVID v. GLENDA S. MARQUEZ

FACTS:

The case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals reinstating the criminal cases of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa against the petitioner, Eileen David. In her Sinumpaang Salaysay, respondent Glenda Marquez alleged that petitioner approached her in Kidapawan City and represented that she could recruit her to work abroad. Respondent alleged that petitioner demanded payment of placement fees and other expenses, but her application was denied and the money was never returned. Petitioner denied the allegations and claimed that she was in Canada at the time of recruitment. She also argued that the case should be filed in Kidapawan City, not Manila. Two separate Informations were filed against petitioner for Illegal Recruitment and Estafa. The Regional Trial Court denied the petitioner's Motion to Quash and ruled that it has jurisdiction over the case.

The petitioner was charged with illegal recruitment and estafa. The petitioner argued that the crimes were committed in Kidapawan City and not in Manila as alleged in the Informations. The petitioner also questioned the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Manila, as it was the place where the complainant resided. The RTC initially denied the petitioner's motion to quash, stating that the complainant's residence in Manila gave it jurisdiction over the case. However, upon the petitioner's motion for reconsideration, the RTC reversed its earlier decision, finding that it had no jurisdiction over the cases as the crimes were not committed within its territory. The RTC ordered the case to be returned to the Office of the Clerk of Court for proper disposition and recalled the warrants of arrest issued against the petitioner. The respondent, through the public prosecutor, filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that part of the essential elements of the crimes took place in Manila as evidenced by the petitioner's deposits in Manila banks. The RTC denied the motion, ruling that the main transaction took place in Kidapawan City and that the deposits in Manila were of no significance. The respondent then filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the RTC had jurisdiction over the cases. The CA ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that the RTC had jurisdiction over the cases based on Section 9 of RA 8042, which allows for the filing of a criminal action in the place where the offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense. The CA also held that the private complainant had the right to file the petition for certiorari as she had an interest in the civil aspect of the case.

The petitioner and respondent, both Filipino citizens, were engaged in a romantic relationship. The petitioner allegedly promised the respondent a job in the United States and collected money from her for various requirements. It was later discovered that the petitioner did not have the capacity to deploy workers to the United States and used the money for personal gain. The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for illegal recruitment and estafa. The Information for illegal recruitment was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, while the Information for estafa was filed with the RTC of Kidapawan City. The RTC of Manila dismissed the case for illegal recruitment on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the alleged recruitment activities were conducted in Kidapawan City. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's ruling and held that the RTC of Manila has jurisdiction based on the respondent's residence at the time of the commission of the offense. The CA also declared that the respondent had the legal personality to assail the dismissal of the criminal cases through a petition for certiorari. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA. Hence, this Petition is filed.

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?

RULING:

  1. The RTC of Manila has jurisdiction over the cases of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa.

  2. The respondent has the legal personality to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

PRINCIPLES:

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

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

  • Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure: Venue for criminal actions is where the offense or any of its essential ingredients occurred.

  • Section 9 of RA 8042: Criminal actions for illegal recruitment may also be filed where the offended party resides.

  • Principle of due process: Prosecution and private offended parties are equally entitled to due process as the accused.

  • Rule 65 of the Rules of Court: Aggrieved parties, including the private offended party, may file a petition for certiorari on grounds of grave abuse of discretion or jurisdictional errors.

  • Principle of double jeopardy: Does not attach if dismissal was granted upon motion of the petitioner or without due process.

  • Rules of procedure should facilitate fair and orderly conduct of proceedings; they must be liberally construed to achieve substantial justice.