FRANCISCO COLMENARES, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. JUDGE ARTURO P. VILLAR, MUNICIPAL JUDGE OF LA CASTEL­LANA, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, AND ATTY. OTHELO CABALES, CHIEF OF POLICE OF LA CAS…

Appeal
from the order of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental (in Civil Case
No. 7929) dismissing for lack of merit the petition for certiorari filed
therein.

The case
arose from the filing in the Municipal Court of La Castellana, Negros
Occidental, by the Chief of Police of the same municipality of a complaint
against one Francisco Colmenares for illegal possession of firearms (Criminal
Case No. 1257), allegedly committed a follows:

“That on the 22nd day of December, 1965, at about 1:30 in the
afternoon more or less, in the municipality of La Castellana, Province of
Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the herein accused, Francisco Colmenares, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody and con­trol
two (2) firearms to wit: one (1) Colt super .38 bearing SN 43975 with magazine
loaded with 9 rounds of live ammunition and WTC Austen MK.I No. 70 with
magazine loaded with 23 rounds of live ammunitions, without first having
obtained proper license therefor.

“An Act Contrary to law.”

Named in the complaint as witnesses were Eduardo Colmenares, also of La
Casteliana, Negros Occidental, and others.

The
accused thereafter filed a motion to quash the complaint^[1] on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction.  It was claimed that venue
was improperly laid, because the firearms mentioned in the complaint were taken
from the possession of the accused in the municipality of La Carlota, Negros Occidental, by the
La Carlota policemen, and not in La Castellana where the complaint was
filed.  The municipal court having denied
this motion, the accused went to the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental
in a petition for certiorari (Civil Case No. 7929), raising the same issue of
improper venue.  And as prayed for in the
petition, a writ of preliminary injunction was issued by said court,
restraining the Municipal judge of La Casteliana from proceeding with the trial
of Criminal Case No. 1257.

Therein
respondents Municipal Judge and Chief of Police of La Castellana, traversing
the averments of the petition, contended that although the alleged unlicensed
firearms were taken from the custody of the accused by La Carlota policemen
such unlawful act of carrying unlicensed firearms started from La Castellana
that the La Carlota policemen intercepted the accused and took the firearms
from him only because they were earlier requested, by telephone, by the
policemen of La Castellana, then in pursuit of the accused, who was fleeing in
a taxicab (Koken No. 25), to assist them in the apprehension of the latter.

On 7 September 1966, the court ordered the dismissal of the peti­tion
for lack of merit.  The accused moved for
reconsideration thereof and, when it was denied, he came to this Court on
appeal, reiterating the argument that since the firearms specified in the
complaint were found in and removed from his custody in the municipality of La
Carlota, the municipal court of La Castellana has no jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the case for illegal possession of such arms.  There is no merit in the appeal.

It must
be remembered that the jurisdiction of the court over a case is determined by
the allegations of the complaint or information.  Here, the complaint filed with the municipal
court of La Cas­tellana recited that on 22 December 1966 the accused, Francisco
Colmenares, was found in possession of two unlicensed firearms in the
municipality of La Castellana.  That
allegation makes the filing of the case in the La Castellana municipal court
proper.  Under the Rules, 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.^[2] That the firearms were
confiscated from him by the La Carlota policemen within the territorial
boundaries of that municipality would not sustain the motion for quashal of the
complaint in this case nor affect the merits thereof.  It is not altogether improbable that the
offense of unlawful possession of firearms could have been committed in La
Castellana, as stated in the complaint, and also in La Carlota, as manifested
by the appellant.  For, being malum
prohibitum, the crime is consummated by the very fact of its performance;
by the firearms being possessed or held by the accused without proper
authorization therefor.  The place where
the said firearms were finally confiscated and taken away from the accused is
immaterial; it could not have added anything to the nature of the unlawful act
completed and consummated earlier.^[3] Thus, for purposes of the
proceeding instituted in the La Castellana municipal court, it is sufficient
that, according to the prosecution, the accused was in possession of the
unlicensed firearms while he was in La Castellana determine the correct venue,
the vital point is the allegation of the situs of the offense charged in the
complaint or infor­mation,^[4] and that is satisfied in
this case.

WHEREFORE, finding no error in the
order appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs against the
appellant.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando,
Teehankee, Barredo, and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Castro, J., on leave.

^[1]
This motion must have been filed after a warrant for the arrest of the accused
was issued, although nothing to this effect appears from the papers submitted
to this Court. There is record that the Municipal judge had fixed the bail at
P5,000.00 (page 9, CFI record), but there is no indication that the accused was
arrested and detained, or else released on bail.

^[2]
Section 14, Revised Rule 110.

^[3]
Duran vs. Tan, 85 Phil. 476.

^[4]
Mediante vs. Ortiz, G.R. No. L-19425, 27 April 1967, 19 SCRA 832.