G.R. No. 209859 - David vs. Marquez

Case Summary (G.R. No. 209859)

Key Dates

Alleged recruitment: March 2005 (with payments and related acts through April 20, 2007).
Informations filed: December 9, 2008 (Criminal Case Nos. 08-265539 [Illegal Recruitment] and 08-265540 [Estafa]).
RTC initial Order denying motion to quash: May 13, 2011.
RTC later Orders granting motion for reconsideration and recalling warrants: January 26, 2012.
RTC denial of prosecution’s motion for reconsideration: March 16, 2012.
CA Decision reinstating cases: May 29, 2013; CA Resolution denying reconsideration: November 6, 2013.
Supreme Court Decision: June 5, 2017 (reported).

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution — guarantees due process and protection against double jeopardy (Bill of Rights).
Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995), Section 9 — provides alternative venue for illegal recruitment actions where the offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense.
Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 110 Sec. 15(a) — place where action is to be instituted (territorial venue where offense or essential ingredients occurred).
Rules of Court, Rule 117 Sec. 3 — enumerated grounds for motion to quash.
Rule 65 (now Rule 63 under revised numbering) — special civil action for certiorari (availability to aggrieved parties on jurisdictional or grave abuse grounds).

Factual Background

According to the sworn complaint (Sinumpaang Salaysay) filed with the Manila City Prosecutor, petitioner allegedly approached respondent in Kidapawan City in March 2005 offering recruitment for overseas employment in Canada. Petitioner purportedly demanded placement and processing fees, which respondent paid amounting to Php152,670.00. Respondent’s application was allegedly denied and the monies were not returned. Petitioner countered that she was physically in Canada at the alleged time (passport entries), was not in the recruitment business, and that the payments were merely coursed through her bank account to a friend in Canada who was processing the application.

Informations Filed

Two separate informations were filed on December 9, 2008:

Criminal Case No. 08-265539 — Illegal Recruitment, citing violations of Article 38(a), P.D. No. 1412 (as amended) and related provisions, alleging recruitment without required POEA license and receipt of placement/processing fees in excess of POEA schedule (Php152,670.00).
Criminal Case No. 08-265540 — Estafa under Art. 315(2)(a) RPC, alleging false representations of capacity to secure overseas employment, inducement to deliver Php152,670.00, and conversion/misappropriation of the funds.

RTC Proceedings — Motion to Quash and Initial Ruling

Warrants of arrest issued December 11, 2008. Petitioner moved to quash (filed April 15, 2009) in Criminal Case No. 08-265540 on grounds including denial of the opportunity to seek reconsideration of the prosecutor’s resolution and lack of territorial jurisdiction (crime committed in Kidapawan City). On May 13, 2011 the RTC denied the motion to quash, holding that the asserted ground was not among the enumerated grounds under Rule 117 Sec. 3 and that, invoking Section 9 of RA 8042, the RTC had jurisdiction because the complainant was a resident of Manila.

RTC Reconsideration — Grant and Recall of Warrants

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration asserting confusion over the two informations and again contesting territorial jurisdiction, noting that respondent’s Manila address was only a postal address. On January 26, 2012, the RTC granted reconsideration, reversed its prior order, found it had no territorial jurisdiction because the alleged illegal recruitment and estafa occurred in Kidapawan City, ordered the cases returned for proper disposition and recalled the warrants of arrest. The RTC subsequently denied the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration (filed by the public prosecutor) on March 16, 2012, reiterating that the essential elements occurred in Kidapawan City and treating bank deposits in Manila as immaterial to the jurisdictional question.

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Ruling

The prosecution (through the public prosecutor) and the private complainant sought relief by petition for certiorari to the CA. The CA addressed two principal issues: (1) whether the private complainant had legal personality to file a special civil action to challenge the RTC’s dismissal and (2) whether the RTC of Manila had jurisdiction. The CA held that a private offended party has standing to file a special civil action under Rule 65 to question a trial court’s jurisdictional ruling affecting the civil aspect or the vindication of the private party’s interest and that Section 9 of RA 8042 permitted filing in the court where the offended party actually resided. Finding respondent to have been residing in Sampaloc, Manila at the time of the commission of the offenses and that elements of the crimes (e.g., deposits of fees) occurred in Manila, the CA nullified and set aside the RTC’s January 26, 2012 Order and March 16, 2012 Resolution, reinstated the informations, and remanded the cases to the RTC for further proceedings.

Issues Presented on Petition for Review

Whether the RTC of Manila had territorial jurisdiction over the Illegal Recruitment and Estafa cases.
Whether the private offended party (respondent) had legal personality to file the petition for certiorari before the CA independently of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).

Supreme Court Ruling — Territorial Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA. The Court reiterated the governing rule that territorial jurisdiction in criminal proceedings is normally where the offense or any essential ingredient occurred (Rule 110 Sec. 15(a)) and that a court’s jurisdiction is established by the allegations in the information; if, however, evidence at trial demonstrates the offense occurred elsewhere, the court should then dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Importantly, the Court emphasized that Section 9 of RA 8042 provides an alternative venue — permitting criminal actions arising from illegal recruitment to be filed in the RTC of the province or city where the offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense — and that the court where an action is first filed acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts. Given the factual findings by lower courts that respondent resided in Sampaloc, Manila and the prosecution’s evidence that some essential elements (e.g., banking deposits) occurred in Manila, the filing in Manila was proper. The Court found the RTC’s outright dismissal on the asserted ground of territorial jurisdiction to be a grave abuse of discretion and a palpable error which deprived the prosecution and private offended party of due process. The proper course was for the RTC to take cognizance and allow the prosecution to present its case, with dismissal to follow only if the trial record showed the offense was committed elsewhere.

Supreme Court Ruling — Legal Personality of the Private Complainant

The Court held that the private offended party has legal personality to file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 to challenge a trial court’s jurisdictional ruling or other grave abuse of discretion amounting to

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 209859)

Case Citation and Nature of Case

Supreme Court, Third Division, G.R. No. 209859, Decision dated June 5, 2017; reported at 810 Phil. 187.
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, assailing the Court of Appeals Decision dated May 29, 2013 and Resolution dated November 6, 2013 in CA-G.R. SP No. 124839.
Subject matter: reinstatement by the CA of criminal cases for Illegal Recruitment and Estafa filed against petitioner Eileen P. David.

Parties and Principal Allegations

Petitioner: Eileen P. David (accused in the criminal cases).
Respondent: Glenda S. Marquez (private offended party/complainant).
Core allegation by respondent: petitioner approached respondent in Kidapawan City (sometime March 2005), represented ability to recruit and secure overseas employment (Canada), demanded and received placement/processing fees and other expenses totaling Php152,670.00, respondent’s application was denied and the fees were not returned.
Petitioner’s principal defenses: physical impossibility to commit acts alleged because she was in Canada at the relevant time (supported by passport entries); she was not engaged in recruitment business; the amounts deposited in her account were merely coursed through her to a friend in Canada who was processing the application (supported by a certification from that friend); jurisdictional contention that, if recruitment occurred, case should be filed in Kidapawan City and not Manila.

Complaints / Informations Filed

Date filed: December 9, 2008 — two separate Informations.
Criminal Case No. 08-265539 — Illegal Recruitment:
- Charged violation of Article 38(a), P.D. No. 1412, in relation to Article 13(b) and (c) of the New Labor Code, as amended, and Sec. 6(a)(1) and (m) of RA 8042.
- Accusation: sometime March 2005 in the City of Manila, petitioner represented capacity to recruit/transport Filipino workers to Canada, recruited and promised employment to Glenda S. Marquez without required DOLE/POEA license, charged/accepted Php152,670.00 in placement/processing fees in excess of POEA schedule, failed to deploy and failed to reimburse expenses.
Criminal Case No. 08-265540 — Estafa (Art. 315 par. 2(a), RPC):
- Accusation: on or between March 8, 2005 and April 20, 2007, in the City of Manila, petitioner made false manifestations that she could recruit/employ Marquez as Live-in Caregiver in Canada, induced Marquez to deliver Php152,670.00 which petitioner allegedly misappropriated/converted for her own use.

Initial RTC Proceedings and Orders

Warrants of arrest issued against petitioner on December 11, 2008.
April 15, 2009: petitioner filed Motion to Quash in Criminal Case No. 08-265540 asserting deprivation of right to seek reconsideration/reinvestigation (not furnished a copy of public prosecutor’s resolution) and lack of jurisdiction of the City Prosecutor of Manila because alleged acts occurred in Kidapawan City.
RTC, Branch 55, Order dated May 13, 2011:
- Denied Motion to Quash: ground invoked by petitioner not among those in Section 3, Rule 117 (Rule on quashal); RTC ruled it had jurisdiction citing Section 9 of RA 8042 allowing filing where offended party actually resides at time of commission of offense (complainant found resident of Manila).
Petitioner filed Motion for Reconsideration claiming confusion about the two Informations and renewing jurisdictional challenge (contest that respondent was actually a resident of Manila vs. postal address claim).
RTC Order dated January 26, 2012 (reconsideration):
- Reconsidered and set aside May 13, 2011 Order; granted petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration; found RTC of Manila lacked territorial jurisdiction because alleged illegal recruitment and estafa were committed in Kidapawan City; ordered case returned for proper disposition.
RTC Order dated January 26, 2012 (warrants):
- Recalled and set aside warrants of arrest issued December 11, 2008, on basis of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Prosecution’s Reaction and Subsequent RTC Ruling

Prosecution (public prosecutor) filed Motion for Reconsideration of RTC’s January 26, 2012 orders:
- Argued records (POEA pro-forma complaint affidavit and Reply-Affidavit) showed deposits for placement fees were made in several banks in Manila to petitioner’s name/account; thus some essential elements occurred in Manila.
- Invoked Section 9 of RA 8042 that allows filing where offended party resides.
- Asserted respondent resided in Sampaloc, Manila at time of incident and up to present.
Petitioner opposed; prosecution filed Comment; petitioner filed Reply.
RTC Order dated March 16, 2012:
- Denied prosecution’s Motion for Reconsideration; ruled essential elements of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa took place in Kidapawan City as per respondent’s Sinumpaang Salaysay; deposits in Manila were insignificant compared to main transaction in Kidapawan; affirmed previous orders setting aside case in Manila for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Ruling

Respondent filed Petition for Certiorari with the CA challenging RTC’s jurisdictional orders.
CA’s principal discussions: (1) respondent’s legal personality to file the petition and (2) RTC’s jurisdiction.
On legal personality:
- CA held private offended party may bring special civil action for certiorari in his/her own name in criminal proceedings before courts to question jurisdictional matters; cited Section 1, Rule 122 and prior jurisprudence that “party” includes persons other than State and accused who may be affected by criminal judgment.
- Found no double jeopardy because charges were dismissed upon motion of petitioner, and private complainant’s certiorari is an available remedy to protect civil interest.
On jurisdiction:
- CA applied Section 9 of RA 8042 (criminal action arising from illegal recruitment may be filed where offended party actually resides at time of commission).
- Found respondent was residing in Sampaloc, Manila at time of commission; therefore RTC Manila had proper jurisdiction and the two Informations were properly filed there.
Disposition (CA Decision dated May 29, 2013):
- Granted the petition for certiorari; nullified and set aside RTC Orders dated January 26, 2012 and March 16, 2012; reinstated and remanded the cases to RTC Manila for appropriate proceedings.
CA Resolution dated