Case Digest (G.R. No. 164938)
Facts:
Victor C. Agustin v. Hon. Fernando Vil Pamintuan, et al., G.R. No. 164938, August 22, 2005, Supreme Court Second Division, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court.On June 13, 2000 the Office of the City Prosecutor of Baguio City filed four separate Informations (Criminal Case Nos. 17892-R to 17895-R) charging Victor C. Agustin, a columnist of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, with libel. The quoted inculpatory portion of Criminal Case No. 17892-R alleged that Agustin published defamatory statements in his column “Cocktails” imputing improper transfer and evasion circumstances involving Anthony De Leon, then acting general manager of the Baguio Country Club. The three other Informations were similarly worded except for article dates.
Agustin was arraigned on September 10, 2001, and pleaded not guilty. He then filed a Motion to Quash the Informations on the sole ground that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the Informations failed to allege that the offended party actually resided in Baguio City at the time of the alleged offenses and failed to allege that the libelous matter was printed and first published in Baguio City as required by Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code.
Private complainant Anthony De Leon opposed the motion, asserting he was a bona fide resident of Baguio City as acting general manager of the Baguio Country Club and that the Informations’ averments, read in context, necessarily implied residency; he also argued Agustin was estopped from challenging jurisdiction after arraignment. By Order of January 16, 2002 the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 3, Baguio City denied the Motion to Quash, finding it reasonable to infer from Agustin’s admission that De Leon was resident in Baguio City. A motion for reconsideration was denied on April 1, 2002.
Agustin filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with plea for injunctive relief in the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in denying the Motion to Quash. In CA-G.R. SP No. 70629 the CA (Delilah Vidallon‑Magtolis, J., with Sabio, Jr. and Abdulwahid, JJ. concurring) dismissed the petition on February 24, 2004, holding the omissions in the Informations were defects of form subject to amendment under Section 14, Rule 110, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, and not jurisdictional. Agustin’s motion for reconsideration in the CA was denied.
Agustin elevated the...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City have jurisdiction over the libel cases where the Informations failed to allege that the offended party actually resided in Baguio City or that the libelous articles were printed and first published there?
- If the Informations were defective for lack of such allegations, could they be amended to cure the defect and...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)