4. Campanano v. Datuin (Ana)

4. Campanano, Jr. v. Datuin (Ana ♥) October 17, 2007 – J. Carpio-Morales FACTS: 1. Datuin (respondent) was charged by Seishin International Corporation, represented by its President, Mr. David Campanano, Jr. with the crime of Estafa for violation of BP 22. 2. The The RTC RTC of Pasi Pasig g conv convic icte ted d Datu Datuin in of the the crim crime e char charge ged d and and the the deci decisi sion on late laterr became final and executor. 3. Later, he claimed that the complaint of Seishin International Corporation against him was "false, unfounded and malicious" in light of newly discovered evidence (cash voucher which allegedly proves that he paid for the 2 roadrollers P200,000 in cash), respondent filed a complaint for Incriminating Against Innocent Persons, punishable under Article 363 of the Revised Penal Code, before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon of Quezon City against petitioner and a certain Yasunobu Hirota. 4. The City Prosecu Prosecutor tor of QC dismisse dismissed d the complaint complaint on the ground ground that that the office office has no jurisdiction since the original case of Estafa was filed in the RTC of Pasig. Datuin elevated the case to the DOJ but but it was dismissed as well. well. However, in the Court of  Appe Ap peal als, s, the the deci decisi sion on was was reve revers rsed ed and and the the case case was was rema remand nded ed to the the City City Prosecutor of QC for further investigation. investigation. ISSUE: Does the City Prosecutor of Quezon City have jurisdiction over the criminal case filed by Datuin? HELD: No. For purposes of determining the place where the criminal action is to be instituted, Section 15(a) 15(a) of Rule Rule 110 of the Revise Revised d Rules Rules on Crimi Crimina nall Proce Procedu dure re of 2000 2000 provi provides des that "[s]ubject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipa municipality lity or territor territory y where where the offens offense e was commit committed ted or wher where e any any of its its essential ingredients occurred." occurred ."  The complaint-affidavit for incriminating innocent person filed by respondent with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City on August 28, 2003 does not allege that the crime charg charged ed or any any of its essen essentia tiall ingre ingredie dients nts was was commit committed ted in Quezon Quezon City. City. The only only reference to Quezon City in the complaint-affidavit is that it is where respondent resides. [18] Respondent's complaint-affidavit was thus properly dismissed by the City Prosecutor of  Quezon City for lack of jurisdiction. Note: Note: In any any event event,, the allegat allegation ions s in the complain complaint-a t-affi ffidav davit it do not make make out a clear clear probable cause of incriminating innocent person under Article 363 of the Revised Penal Code. Case dismissed!