Lopez v City Judge

LOPEZ v CITY JUDGE 18 SCRA 616DIZON, October 29, 1966 NATURE Petition for review on Certiorari and Prohibition FACTS -Petitioners (Roy Villasor, Angelina Meijia Lopez andAurora Mejia Villasor) and other heirs of spousesM a n u e l M e i j i a a n d G l o r i a L a z a t i n e n t e r e d i n t o a contract with respondent Trinidad Lazatin for thedevelopment and subdivision of 3 parcels of landbelonging to the intestate estate. Lazatin transferredhis rights to Terra Dev’t Co (TDC).Petitioners and co-heirs filed an action in CFI QC forrescission of said contract with Lazatin for allegedgross and willful violation of its terms.-Respondents (Lazatin and TDC) filed with Fiscal’sO f f i c e o f C i t y o f A n g e l e s a c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t petitioners for violation of A172 in relation to A171,par4, RPC. Preliminary investigation conducted.Fiscal filed with Court in Angeles City informationcharging petitioners with crime of falsification of private document. Allegedly, Aurora and Angelinam a d e i t a p p e a r t h a t t h e y w e r e t h e g u a r d i a n s o f minors George and Alexander Meijia (sons of thespouses?) when they weren’t the guardians at thedate of the execution of the document, a certain Carolina M. de Castro was the judicial guardian of thesaid minors).-Petitioners asked for a reinvestigation. Angeles CityFiscal reinvestigated to give them opportunity topresent exculpatory evidence. After reinvestigation,parties charged moved for the dismissal of the case mainly on the ground that the City Court of Angeles had no jurisdiction over the offensebecause the private document that containedthe alleged false statement of fact was signedby them outside the territorial limits of saidcity (One in Makati, the other one in QC).-However, the resolution of their motion to dismisswas delayed and the City Court already set theircriminal case for arraignment. Petitioners securedseveral postponements of the arraignment. But sinceCity Fiscal continually failed to act on their motion todismiss, petitioners filed a motion to quash instead,o n t h e g r o u n d t h a t c o u r t h a d n o j u r i s d i c t i o n . Respondents (with conformity of City Fiscal) filed anopposition to the motion to quash. Respondent judged e n i e d m o t i o n t o q u a s h , s e t a r r a i g n m e n t . S o petitioners filed present action. ISSUE 1. WON City Court of Angeles City had jurisdiction tot r y a n d d e c i d e t h e c r i m i n a l c a s e f o r a l l e g e d falsification of a private document allegedly done byt h e p a r t i e s n a m e d i n t h e i n f o e v e n i f t h e a c t s o f falsification was allegedly done in Makati and QC,and thus outside the jurisdiction of said court Other procedural issues 2 . W O N t h e m o t i o n t o q u a s h w a s i m p r o p e r , a n d should not be allowed since by filing the said motion,the petitioners necessarily assumes the truth of theallegation of the information to the effect that theo f f e n s e w a s c o m m i t t e d w i t h i n t h e t e r r i t o r i a l jurisdiction of Angeles City3 . W O N t h e p r a y e r f o r w r i t s o f c e r t i o r a r i a n d prohibition is proper HELD 1. NO.

Ratio. The place where the criminal offense was committed not only determines the venueof the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction Reasoning. Petitioners are charged with havingfalsified a private document, not using a falsifieddocument, so it is essential to determine when andw h e r e t h e o f f e n s e o f f a l s i f i c a t i o n o f a p r i v a t e document is deemed consum mated or committed. The crime of falsification of a private document isc o n s u m m a t e d w h e n s u c h d o c u m e n t i s a c t u a l l y falsified with the intent to prejudice a 3 rd person,whether such falsified document is or is not put touse illegally. The improper and illegal use of thedocument is not material or essential element of thecrime of falsification of a private document [US vs. Infante, US vs. Barreto]2. NO Ratio. The motion to quash now provided for in Rule117 of the Rules of Court is manifestly broader ins c o p e t h a n t h e d e m u r r e r , a s i t i s n o t l i m i t e d t o defects apparent upon the face of the complaint ori n f o r m a t i o n b u t e x t e n d s t o i s s u e s a r i s i n g o u t o f extraneous facts, as shown by the circumstance that,among the grounds for a motion to quash, Section 2of said Rule provides for former jeopardy or acquittal,extinction of criminal action or liability, insanity of the accused etc., which necessarily involve questionsof fact in the determination of which a preliminarytrial is required. Reasoning. The argument of the respondents referto the now obsolete demurrer to an information.3. YES Ratio. The general rule is that a court of equity willnot issue a writ of certiorari to annul an order of alower court denying a motion to quash, nor issue aw r i t o f p r o h i b i t i o n t o p r e v e n t s a i d c o u r t f r o m proceeding with the case after such denial, it beingthe rule that upon such denial the defendant shoulde n t e r h i s p l e a o f n o t g u i l t y a n d g o t o t r i a l a n d , i f convicted, raise on appeal the same legal questionscovered by his motion to quash. In this as well as inother jurisdictions, however, this is no longer thehard and fast rule.T h e w r i t s o f c e r t i o r a r i a n d p r o h i b i t i o n , a s extraordinary legal remedies, are, in the ultimateanalysis, intended to annul void proceedings; toprevent the unlawful and oppressive exercise of legala u t h o r i t y a n d t o p r o v i d e f o r a f a i r a n d o r d e r l y administration of justice. Reasoning. In several cases, the court already tookcognizance of said writs, overlooking the flaw in thep r o c e d u r e f o l l o w e d i n t h e i n t e r e s t o f a m o r e e n l i g h t e n e d a n d s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i c e . T h e l a c k o f jurisdiction of the City Court of Angeles is patent andit would be highly unfair to compel the petitioners tou n d e r g o t r i a l i n s a i d c o u r t a n d s u f f e r a l l t h e embarrassment and mental anguish that go with it. Dispositive W H E R E F O R E , j u d g m e n t i s h e r e b y rendered declaring that the offense charged in theinformation filed in Criminal Case No. C-2268 of theC i t y C o u r t o f A n g e l e s C i t y i s n o t w i t h i n t h e jurisdiction of said

court and that, therefore, saidc o u r t i s h e r e b y r e s t r a i n e d a n d p r o h i b i t e d f r o m further proceedings therein. Costs against the privaterespondents.