Pleading_final.docx

Republic of the Philippines National Capital Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 100, Quezon City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff,

Criminal Case No. Q-11-15690 Violation of section 1(b), Article 315 Revised Penal Code

- versus -

VLADIMIR TIAMSON SISON Defendant

x------------------------------------------------x

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION COMES NOW the Defendant, Vladimir Tiamson Sison, through the undersigned counsel, most respectfully moves for the dismissal of the abovecaptioned case based on the following:

PREFATORY STATEMENT Explaining the rule that venue is an essential element in criminal prosecution, the Supreme Court held in Foz, Jr. vs People1: 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 the criminal case 1

G.R. No. 167764, October 9, 2009

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.

THE HONORABLE COURT HAS NO TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE INSTANT CRIMINAL CASE 1. Well-settled is the rule that venue determines not only the place where the criminal action is to be instituted, but also the court that has the jurisdiction to try and hear the case. 2. Under section 1, paragraph (b), of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, the following are the elements of estafa: a. That money, goods, or other personal property be received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same; b. That there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt; c. That such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and d. That there is a demand made by the offended party to the offender. 3. In the instant case, the prosecution failed to show that any of the elements of the offense were committed in Quezon City. The prosecution contends that the offense charged was consummated on September 3, 2018 when the Bank of the Philippine Islands, Matalino Branch in Quezon City, dishonored the check that the Defendant issued to the private complainant, Maria Teresa Tiongco. Thus, it is alleged that this Honorable Court has jurisdiction over the instant case. 4. However, the dishonor of the check is not material in estafa. In this case, while it was alleged in the criminal information that the offense was committed in Quezon City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the Affidavit of Complaint (“Affidavit”) executed by the private complainant does not contain any allegation that any of the essential ingredients of the offense charged 2

were committed in Quezon City. The private complainant herself alleged that the personal delivery by the Defendant to the former of the post-dated check happened in Baguio City. The only time that Quezon City was mentioned was with respect to the allegation that the private complainant presented the check for encashment in BPI, Matalino Branch, which the latter subsequently dishonored. The Affidavit provides in part: xxx d. That on July 3, 2018, [Maria Teresa Tiangco] personally gave the sum of P250,000.00 in check to Vladimir Sison, also an employee at the Commission on Audit-Cordillera Administrative Region at Casa Vallejo, Upper Session Road, Baguio City; e. That the said amount was to be deposited by Vladimir Sison in [the] account [of Maria Teresa Tiangco] in the COA Employees Credit Association in COA Central Office in Quezon City just in time for the scheduled travel of Sison to COA-CO for a training; f. That on July 9, 2018, Vladimir Sison personally delivered to [Maria Teresa Tiangco] the deposit slip and statement of account at Chef’s Home, No. 88 Unit C, Old Sicat Hotel, Aspiras-Palispis Highway, Baguio City. g. That upon verification, said documents turned out to be fake and no deposit was made by Vladimir Sison. h. That on August 27, 2018, [Maria Teresa Tiangco] met again Vladimir Sison in Arca’s Yard, 777 Tiptop, Ambuklao Road, Baguio City, and the latter promised to refund the money by giving a post-dated BPI check in the amount of P250,000.00. i. That on September 3, 2018, [Maria Teresa Tiangco] caused the encashment of the check in BPI, Matalino Branch, Quezon City but the same was dishonored due to insufficient funds. (Emphasis supplied.) xxx Indeed, the presentment of the check for encashment and its dishonor are irrelevant. What is of decisive importance is the delivery of the instrument which is the final act essential to its consummation as an obligation.2 Verily, all the essential elements of estafa were committed in Baguio City, not in Quezon City. 5. Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

2

Ruel Francis M. Cabral Vs. Chris S. Bracamonte, G.R. No. 233174, January 23, 2019

3

a. Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court or municipality or territory where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred. 6. The above provision should be read together with Section 10 of the same Rule which provides: d. Place of commission of the offense. – The complaint or information is sufficient if it can be understood from its allegations that the offense was committed or some of its essential ingredients occurred at some place within the jurisdiction of the court, unless the particular place where it was committed constitutes an essential element of the offense charged or is necessary for its identification. 7. Both provisions categorically place the venue and jurisdiction over criminal cases not only in the court where the offense was committed, but also where any of its essential ingredients took place.3 8. The same provisions underscore the protection that the law affords to the Defendant to ensure that he is not compelled to move to, and appear in, a different court from that of the province where the crime was committed as it would cause him great inconvenience in looking for his witnesses and other evidence in another place.4 The same is availing in this particular case because of the considerable distance between Baguio City and Quezon City, depriving the Defendant of his opportunity to efficiently prepare for his defense. 9. It was also noted that the private complainant filed the complaint two weeks after her transfer of assignment in COA Central Office in Quezon City. It cannot be more emphasized at this point that jurisdiction is conferred by law and not by the private complainant’s own choosing. 10.There being no showing that the offense was committed within Quezon City, this Honorable Court has no jurisdiction over the case.

PRAYER WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Defendant prays that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

3 4

Union Bank of the Philippines v. People, 667 SCRA 113 Campanano v. Datuin, 536 SCRA 471.

4

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for. Baguio City for Quezon City, Metro Manila, 13 March 2019.

MANGONDATO & DUMARAN Counsel for Defendant VLADIMIR T. SISON M&A Law Office 101 Session Rd, Mabini Street 124 Baguio City Tel. No.: (074) 111-9999 Fax No.: (074) 123-6578 By:

CEASAR Y. DUMARAN PTR No. X-5689758 – 01/04/18 – Baguio City IBP Life Member Roll No. 01589 – 01/09/08 – Baguio City Roll of Attorneys No. 66978 MCLE Compliance No. V-00145785 – 10/14/2016

ARIEL M. GATCHALIAN PTR No. X-1587859 – 02/09/18 – Baguio City IBP Life Member Roll No. 02356 – 09/02/11 – Baguio City Roll of Attorneys No. 78985 MCLE Compliance No. V-00157468 – 09/18/2017

COPIES FURNISHED: (By Registered Mail)

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT Regional Trial Court National Capital Judicial Region Quezon City, Branch 100

THE HONORABLE ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR Office of the City Prosecutor Hall of Justice, Quezon City 5

NOTICE OF HEARING

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT Regional Trial Court National Capital Judicial Region Quezon City, Branch 100 THE HONORABLE ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR Office of the City Prosecutor Hall of Justice, Quezon City Please take notice that the foregoing Motion will be submitted for the Court’s consideration and resolution on 15 April 2019 at 8:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as matter and counsel may be heard.

CEASAR Y. DUMARAN

EXPLANATION FOR SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL Please be informed that the undersigned counsel caused the service of copies of the instant Motion to Dismiss upon the above-named parties by Registered Mail, due to time constraints, the shortage of available manpower to effect personal service, and the considerable distance between the Honorable Office and the office of the above-named parties from the office of the undersigned counsel.

CEASAR Y. DUMARAN

6