G.R. No. L-27410 - Tuzon vs. Cruz

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-27410)

Factual Background

The complainant alleged that on October 6, 1966 Dina Tuzon, with co-accused Faustino Aguilar, defrauded Lyric Piano Center Co., Inc. of P1,900 by pretending to be an authorized representative of one Carlos Rivera and executing a fictitious contract. The affidavit supporting the complaint stated that the deceptive acts occurred at 184 Dr. Alejos Street, La Loma, Quezon City, but that the payment (the damage) was made in Mandaluyong at the office of Judge Cesar C. Cruz. A warrant of arrest was issued following a preliminary examination by Judge Cruz; Dina Tuzon was arrested and later released on bail. Tuzon filed a motion to quash the complaint on territorial jurisdiction grounds, attaching copies of a Transfer of Rights document (signed in Quezon City but sworn to before Judge Cruz in Mandaluyong), vouchers showing receipts, and a photostat of a preliminary agreement allegedly executed in Quezon City. Faustino Aguilar did not file a motion to quash.

Procedural History

After Judge Cruz conducted a preliminary examination and issued an arrest warrant, petitioner moved to quash on the ground that the alleged estafa was committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Mandaluyong municipal court. The municipal court denied the motion to quash and a subsequent motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then sought relief by filing special civil actions (certiorari and prohibition) in the Supreme Court to annul the municipal court’s order. The Supreme Court considered whether the municipal court properly conducted the preliminary investigation and also examined petitioner’s contention that Judge Cruz should have inhibited himself because he was named as a witness in the complaint.

Issues Presented

Whether the Mandaluyong municipal court had proper territorial jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation for the estafa complaint. 2. Whether certiorari and prohibition were proper remedies to review the denial of the motion to quash. 3. Whether Judge Cesar C. Cruz should have inhibited himself from conducting the preliminary investigation because he was listed as a witness in the complaint.

Governing Legal Standards

Judiciary Law Sec. 87 and Rule 112 Sec. 2 permit municipal judges to conduct preliminary investigations for offenses cognizable by the Court of First Instance within their municipalities, irrespective of the punishment’s limits. - Municipal or city courts have original jurisdiction over estafa only where the amount involved does not exceed two hundred pesos (Judiciary Law Sec. 87[b][3]). Estafa involving P1,900 falls within the original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance (Article 315, Revised Penal Code). - Rule 110 Sec. 14 of the Rules of Court: criminal actions shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province wherein the offense was committed or any one of the essential ingredients thereof took place; allegations of the complaint or information control venue determination. - For transitory or continuing offenses, where material and essential acts occur in different provinces, either province’s court has jurisdiction to try the case; the first court taking cognizance excludes the other. - General rule: special civil actions such as certiorari, prohibition or mandamus do not ordinarily lie to review orders denying motions to quash; exceptions may arise where other compelling circumstances exist (as reflected in cited authorities).

Analysis on Territorial Jurisdiction and Venue

The Court analyzed the complaint and the supporting affidavit and found that an essential ingredient of estafa—actual payment (the damage)—was alleged to have occurred in Mandaluyong, specifically at the municipal judge’s office. Because Rule 110 Sec. 14 allows actions to be instituted where any essential ingredient of the offense took place, and because the complaint’s allegations are controlling for venue determination, the municipal court of Mandaluyong had authority to conduct the preliminary investigation. Although some deceitful acts (false pretenses) may have occurred in Quezon City, the estafa in this case was transitory or continuing in nature, permitting prosecution in either jurisdiction where essential elements occurred. Therefore, the municipal court’s denial of the motion to quash on venue grounds was not erroneous.

Analysis on Availability of Special Civil Actions

The Court reiterated the general principle that certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus ordinarily do not lie to review an order denying a motion to quash. That principle was applied here to decline relief based on the venue contention. The petition grounded on lack of jurisdiction (venue) was found devoid of merit because the complaint sufficient

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-27410)

Citation and Court

160 Phil. 925, Second Division.
G.R. No. L-27410.
Decision rendered August 28, 1975.
Decision authored by Justice Aquino.
Justices Makalintal, C.J., Fernando, Barredo, and Concepcion, Jr., concurred; Justice Antonio was on leave.

Nature of the Action and Relief Sought

Petition for special civil actions of certiorari and prohibition filed by Dina Tuzon.
Purpose: to annul the order of the Municipal Court of Mandaluyong, Rizal, denying petitioner's motion to quash the complaint for estafa in Criminal Case No. 17393.

Parties

Petitioner: Dina Tuzon.
Respondents: The Honorable Cesar C. Cruz, Judge of the Municipal Court of Mandaluyong, Rizal; and Benjamin Fernandez (complainant/representative of Lyric Piano Center Co., Inc.).

Facts — Complaint (as quoted in the record)

Complaint alleges:
- On or about 4:00 PM of October 6, 1966, in the Municipality of Mandaluyong, Province of Rizal, the accused, confederating and aiding one another, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defrauded Lyric Piano Center Company, Inc. in the amount of ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED PESOS (P1,900.00).
- The accused falsely pretended to be the representative or authorized agent of one Carlos Rivera and executed a fictitious contract with the company, to its damage and prejudice in the stated amount.
- Complaint signed October 14, 1966, by Benjamin Fernandez, Representative of Lyric Piano Center Co., Complainant; subscribed and sworn before Judge Cesar C. Cruz.
- Witnesses listed: Benjamin Fernandez, Cesar Cruz (Judge) c/o Mandaluyong Municipal Court, Carlos Rivera, and others.

Facts — Complainant’s Supporting Affidavit (pertinent excerpts)

Affidavit alleges:
- The deceit occurred at No. 184 Dr. Alejos St., La Loma, Quezon City.
- The payment (constituting the damage) was consummated at Mandaluyong, Rizal.
- The amount paid by Lyric Piano Center Co., Inc. was P1,900.00, received by Dina Tuzon at about 4:00 PM on October 6, 1966.
- When asked where in Mandaluyong the payment occurred, the affidavit states: "Sa opisina ni Judge Cesar C. Cruz ng Mandaluyong."
The affidavit, like the complaint, was sworn to before respondent Cesar C. Cruz, the municipal judge of Mandaluyong.

Procedural History in the Lower Court

Judge Cesar C. Cruz conducted a preliminary examination and issued a warrant of arrest.
Dina Tuzon was arrested and subsequently posted bail.
Dina Tuzon filed a motion to quash the complaint on the ground that the estafa was committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Mandaluyong municipal court.
Attached to the motion to quash were:
- A photostatic copy of a document titled "Transfer of Rights" signed by petitioner at Quezon City but sworn to at Mandaluyong before Judge Cruz.
- Illegible photostatic copies of two vouchers of Lyric Piano Center Co., Inc. showing petitioner received P1,600 from that company.
- A photostat of a supposed preliminary agreement over the "telephone rights" allegedly executed in Quezon City.
The other accused, Faustino Aguilar, did not file a motion to quash; the record does not show whether he was arrested.
Judge Cruz denied the motion to quash and denied a motion for reconsideration of that denial.
Petitioner sought relief from the Supreme Court by certiorari and prohibition to annul the denial order.

Legal Issues Presented

Primary issue: Whether the municipal court of Mandaluyong had proper territorial jurisdiction (venue) to conduct the preliminary investigation in Criminal Case No. 17393 for estafa involving P1,900.
Subsidiary issue raised in petitioner’s motion to quash: Whether Judge Cesar C. Cruz should have inhibited himself from investigating the case because he was listed as a witness in the complaint.

Applicable Statutes, Rules, and Authorities Cited

Judiciary Law, Sec. 87 (municipal judges may conduct preliminary investigations for offenses alleged to have been committed within their respective municipalities which are cognizable by Courts of First Instance).
Rules of Court:
- Rule 112, Sec. 2 (referenced alongside Sec. 87, Judiciary Law).
- Rule 110, Sec. 14: &qu