THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. EDUVIGES SAN ANTONIO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

The prosecution has appealed from
an order of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan
quashing, on defendant’s motion, an information for
estafa alleging:

“That on or about the month of
March, 1961, in the municipality of Obando, province
of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the said accused Eduviges San
Antonio, by means of false pretenses and fraudulent manifestations, received
from the complaining witness Veronica M. de Leon the sum of P2,620.00 for the purpose of buying rice and with the express
obligation of delivering the purchased rice on or before May 20, 1961. or to
return to the said Veronica M. de Leon the said sum of P2,620.00 if no rice is
purchased, but the said accused, once in possession of the said amount, and far
from complying with her aforesaid obligation, and in spite of repealed demands
to return the said sum of P2,620.00, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with grave abuse of
confidence and with deceit, misappropriate, misapply and convert to her personal
use and benefit the said sum of P2,620.00, belonging to the said Veronica M. de
Leon, to the damage and prejudice of the latter in the sum of
P2.620.00″

Appellant contends that the court
a quo “erred in holding that the transaction subject of the information
has been consummated in the City of Manila and in granting1 motion to quash on
this ground”.

In the record it is shown that on
June 14, 1961, Veronica M. de Leon filed a complaint for estafa in the Justice of the Peace Court of Obando, Bulacan, against Eduviges San Antonio, as follows:

“That on or about the month of
March, 1961, in the Municipality of Obando, Province
of Bulacan, and within the jurisdiction of this Court,
the said unused, having received from Veronica M. de Leon, offended party
herein, the sum of TWO THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWENTY PESOS (P2,620.00) for the
purpose of buying for the latter rice with the expressly obligation of
delivering said rice or the money if she be not able to buy any on or before May
20, 1961, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously misappropriate, misapply and convert the said sum of P2,620.00 to
her own use and benefit and to the damages and prejudice of the undersigned
Veronica M. de Leon in the sum of P2,620.00
(sic.)

Accompanying the complaint was an
affidavit of the complainant and a receipt signed by the
accused.

The affidavit, dated June 14,
1961, stated that complainant had known the accused for a long time and that
they are residents of Barrio Catanghalan, Obando, Bulacan; that complainant
used to sell and distribute rice in their barrio; that the. accused, knowing
complainant’s need of rice for distribution, offered to buy rice for her; that
in March of 1961 complainant delivered to the accused P2,620.00 for said purpose
in her residence at Obando, Bulacan, without a receipt; that in May of 1961 complainant
asked the accused for a receipt with a statement of her undertaking, and the
latter executed the receipt; that the accused was to deliver the rice on or
before May 20, 1961 or return the money should she not be able to buy any; and
that on May 20, 1961, complainant went to see the accused at her residence in
Manila, demanding the delivery of the rice or the return of the money, but the
accused refused to do so.

The receipt, attached to the
affidavit as integral thereof, is quoted hereunder:

“RECIBO”

“Tinanggap ko kay Gng. VIRGINIA DE LEON ng Obando, Bulacan and halagang ISANG LIBO
ISANG DAAN PISO (P1,100.00), kuartang Filipino, na ang nasabing halaga ay aking ipamili ng bigas na ihuhulog ko kay GNG. VIRGINIA DE LEON at kung
hindi ako makabili ng bigas ang nasabing halaga ay aking isasauli nang walang tubo o patong sa kanya sa 20 ng Mayo, 1961 sa kanyang tahanan sa Obando, Bulacan.

“Maynila, Mayo 3, 1961.”

(Sgd.) EDUVIGES SAN
ANTONIO

“Sa harap nila:

(Sgd.) FLORA DE
LEON

(Sgd.) CONSOLACION
DAVID”

After the accused waived the
second stage of preliminary investigation, the records were transmitted to the
Court of First Instance of Bulacan, where, on February
6, 1962, the corresponding information, aforequoted,
was filed.

On March 16, 1962, before
arraignment, defense counsel Gloved to quash the information on the ground that,
per receipt signed in Manila, the alleged crime was committed outside the
territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. Said Motion was denied on March 26,
1902, for the reason that defendant presented no sufficient evidence to prove
his contention and that in complainant’s affidavit it is slated that the money
was delivered to the accused in Obando, Bulacan.

Subsequently, however, a second
motion to quash was filed, on September 11, 1962, upon the same ground. The
court a quo, on the same day, granted the motion and dismissed the case with
costs de oficio. The prosecution’s motion for
reconsideration was thereafter denied.

It is a fundamental principle of
remedial law that what determines the jurisdiction and competence of a court is
that which is alleged in the information ( U.S.
vs. Mallari,

For purposes of determining
jurisdiction in the present case, therefore, the question of where the accused
allegedly received the money has to be resolved by the allegations in the
information. It is categorically stated therein that “on or about the month of
March 1961, in the municipality of Obando, province
of Bulacan …. the said
accused Eduviges San Antonio, by means of false
pretenses and fraudulent manifestations, received from the complaining
witness Veronica M. de Leon the sum of P2,620.00″. (Italics supplied.)
Such element of estafa accordingly took place in Bulacan, as far as the motion to quash is concerned, so that
the offense alleged is within the court a quo’s
jurisdiction.

Furthermore, as stated, the
defense relied on the receipt for its contention that the money was received in
Manila. The affidavit of the complainant, however, to which the receipt is
attached and made an integral part, states that said receipt was executed merely
to confirm the delivery of the money previously made in Bulacan.

Assuming, even, that the money
was delivered to the accused in Manila, the express undertaking of the accused,
stated in the information as well as in the receipt, was to deliver the rice
purchased therewith, or return the money, in Obando,
Bulacan. The alleged failure of the accused to comply
with said undertaking:—an element of estafa—is a
failure to deliver the palay or return the money in
Obando, Bulacan, that is,
within the court a quo’s jurisdiction.

Wherefore, the order quashing the
information is hereby set aside, and the case remanded for further proceedings,
without costs.

 It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal and Zaldivar, JJ.,
concur.