G.R. No. 187633 - Heirs of Tappa vs. Heirs of Bacud

Case Summary (G.R. No. 187633)

Key Dates

• October 2, 2003 – Alleged date of falsification of a receipt in Jagna, Bohol
• February 10, 2005 – Filing of the Information in MCTC Jagna-Garcia-Hernandez
• November 2, 2005 – MCTC Order denying motion to quash
• September 21, 2006 – RTC Order denying petition for certiorari
• August 28, 2007 – CA Decision affirming RTC
• May 7, 2008 – CA Resolution denying reconsideration
• June 22, 2015 – Supreme Court Decision

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (Article VIII, Section 5[4])
• Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rules 110, 130)
• Revised Penal Code, Articles 171 & 172 (falsification of private document)

Factual Background

Petitioner was accused of altering a commercial receipt from P810.00 to P1,810.00 at Garden Café, Jagna, Bohol, then submitting it for reimbursement from her employer, DKT Philippines, Inc. A Complaint-Affidavit charged her with falsification of a private document under Articles 171(2) and 172(2) of the Revised Penal Code.

Charge and Information

The Information alleged that on October 2, 2003, in Jagna, Bohol, petitioner “willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsif[ied] commercial receipt No. 6729 … by making an alteration … from EIGHT HUNDRED TEN PESOS (P810.00) to ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TEN PESOS (P1,810.00),” then used it to claim reimbursement, to her own benefit and to the prejudice of DKT Philippines.

Proceedings Before the MCTC

Petitioner moved to quash for improper venue, arguing that no essential element of the alleged falsification occurred in Jagna. The MCTC denied the motion (November 2, 2005), and on January 24, 2006, denied reconsideration.

RTC Proceedings

Petitioner filed certiorari with the RTC, contending grave abuse of discretion in the MCTC’s venue ruling. The RTC denied relief (September 21, 2006), holding that the Information’s allegations concerning the place of falsification were sufficient to confer jurisdiction, and that venue is determined by the complaint’s allegations, not by subsequent proof.

CA Proceedings

On appeal, the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 02353, affirmed the RTC Order (August 28, 2007) and denied reconsideration (May 7, 2008). It agreed that the allegations established probable cause that the act occurred in Jagna, Bohol.

Issues for Supreme Court Review

I. Whether the MCTC of Jagna, Bohol, had jurisdiction over the case (venue).
II. Whether a petition for certiorari was a proper remedy to challenge the denial of a motion to quash.
III. Whether settled jurisprudence permits certiorari to question denial of a motion to quash.

Venue in Criminal Cases

Under Rule 110, Sections 10 & 15(a) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, and prevailing jurisprudence, venue lies where the offense was committed or where any essential ingredient occurred. Venue is an essential element of jurisdiction and must be alleged in the Information; it cannot be presumed.

Jurisdiction Analysis

The Supreme Court held that the Information and Complaint-Affidavit adequately alleged that the alteration was made in Jagna, Bohol. Consequently, the MCTC had jurisdiction. The petitioner’s contrary factual assertions—that reimbursement occurred in Cebu City and that damage only took place upon payment—go to the merits and must be proven or disproven at trial. Should evidence later show the act occurred outside Jagna, the MCTC must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Probable Cause and Evidence

The Court emphasized that for purposes of filing an Information, probable cause requires only a reasonable belief that the crime was committed and that the accused is probably guilty—not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The MCTC’s reference to the Regional Stat