PAUL A. SUPNET, PETITIONER, VS. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BAGUIO CITY, BRANCH 3 AND FREDERICK D. PATI, RESPONDENTS.
BATO, JR., J.:
Favorably acting on the complaint filed by private respondent Frederick D. Pati, the City Prosecutor’s Office of Baguio City filed an Information for libel against petitioner Paul A. Supnet on 02 July 2008. The case was raffled to the court a quo and docketed as Criminal Case No. 28483-R. The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
“That on or about the 17th day of March, 2008, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate and malicious intent and evil motive of impeaching the character, integrity, virtue and reputation of FREDERICK PATI y DE AUSEN and to subject his character and reputation to public contempt, ridicule, discredit and dishonor, without any justifiable motive, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously post in the website of the Baguio Boys Cockers Club (BBCC), the following articles:
x x x x x x x x x
‘Eric, no one will believe in you being a con artist. You resorted into bluff to evade the money you owe me. You posted statements on this thread to seek sympathy. You have a bad attitude. You’re facing several cases, you bastard. I am aware of that. You can ask Wilson, we know your background. You backfighter. You’re a sorry ass. In igorot, you’re an asshole. Try to speak up and I will reveal all this (sic) bad things I know.’x x x x x x x x x
‘Wilson is your lawyer. He is the one handling several cases filed against you. There’s no need to reveal his family name since you know him already. You’re just pretending that you don’t know him. You’re a dirty person. How many Filipinos do you intend to defraud. You should stay in jail, you liar. How many women have you impregnated? You don’t have conscience. A lot of people filed cases against you because you’re involved into wigwag (2nd hand clothing) scam. You’re a menace to the society. Even willord who helped you, you intend to file charges on him. Mr. Eric Pati, they already know your attitude.’When in truth and in fact said accused well knew that the statements or allegations are false, untrue and malicious, thereby causing dishonor, discredit, ridicule or contempt against said FREDERICK PATI y DE AUSEN.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”[2]
The petitioner remained at large despite the issuance of a warrant of arrest against him. On 24 July 2009, the court a quo issued an Order[3] archiving the case against the petitioner.
On 20 November 2012, petitioner through counsel filed a Motion to Retrieve the Case from the Archive with Motion to Quash.[4] Petitioner argued that the court a quo has no jurisdiction over the offense charged in the information. He pointed out that the Information failed to allege where the offended party was residing. The Information likewise failed to state the place where the written defamation was printed and first published.
By way of Comment/Opposition, private respondent Frederick D. Pati argued that the case against the petitioner had been archived because he has remained at large. It follows therefore that the revival of the case would not be possible when the petitioner remains at large. He further argued that the failure to allege in the Information the place where the offense was committed is insufficient to dismiss the Information since the prosecution can just make a manifestation to amend the information.
On 12 December 2012, the court a quo, through Hon. Acting Presiding Judge Rose Mary R. Molina-Alim, issued the first assailed Order[5] denying petitioner’s Motion to Retrieve the Case from the Archive with Motion to Quash. The court a quo ruled that the accused must first be placed in the custody of the law, either by his voluntary surrender or upon his posting of the required bail in the amount of Php12,000.00, before his motion can be validly acted upon.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration[6] against said Order, arguing that jurisdiction over the person of the accused is required only in applications for bail. But in cases where an accused invokes the special jurisdiction of the court, an accused can seek judicial relief even though there is neither jurisdiction over the person nor custody of the law.
The court a quo, however, denied petitioner’s motion in the second assailed Order[7] dated 27 February 2013. The court a quo, through Hon. Acting Presiding Judge Rose Mary R. Molina-Alim, ratiocinated as follows:
“In the instant case, although accused maintains, he filed the assailed motion (i.e. motion to retrieve the case form the archive with motion to quash), not to post bail, but directly to question the jurisdiction of the court over the instant case, the court is of the belief that proper dispensation and determination of judgment would be appropriately rendered, if accused would surrender and submit himself first to its jurisdiction, hence, giving him a better chance to defend himself, especially so, when accused has no counter-affidavit to rebut the accusations of the private complainant, which could also be the basis of the court’s ruling on the matter; instead, it was only made to act on limited information provided by the record.
Granting the information is defective as alleged by accused, the same shall not amount to automatic dismissal of the information, as the prosecution can still amend the same. But in this case, accused has yet to surrender himself to the Court before his motion to quash could be property acted upon.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration dated 27 December 2012 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.”[8]
Hence, the instant petition with the following issues for this Court’s resolution:
“A. Whether or not the February 27, 2013 Order was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction in requiring petitioner to surrender himself to the custody of the law or to post bail before his motion to retrieve the case from the archive with motion to quash could be heard by the court. B. Whether or not the information filed in Criminal Case No. 28483-R may be dismissed for being fatally defective on its face.”[9]
By way of Comment,[10] private respondent Frederick D. Pati counters that until such time that the petitioner will be arrested or he voluntarily surrenders, the case cannot be revived.
The petition is meritorious.
As defined by jurisprudence, grave abuse of discretion means such capricious and arbitrary exercise of judgment as equivalent, in the eyes of the law, to lack of jurisdiction.[11] There is grave abuse of discretion where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[12] Through time, the meaning of grave abuse of discretion has been expanded to include any action done contrary to the constitution, the law or jurisprudence.[13]
The ruling of the court a quo that the petitioner must first voluntarily surrender or post the required bail before his Motion to Retrieve the Case from the Archive with Motion to Quash, is clearly contrary to existing laws and jurisprudence. As ruled in Alawiya vs. Court of Appeals,[14] there is nothing in Rule 117 of the Rules of Court which requires that the accused should be under the custody of the law prior to the filing of a motion to quash. Moreover, in Miranda vs. Tuliao,[15] it was ruled that custody of the law is not required for the adjudication of reliefs other than an application for bail.
Petitioner filed a motion before the court a quo praying that the case against him be retrieved from the archive for the purpose of hearing his motion to quash the information. Thus, the two reliefs prayed for by the petitioner, i.e., for the retrieval of the case from the archive and for the quashal of the information against him, should not be resolved separately. In the main, petitioner’s motion is premised on the argument that the court a quo has no jurisdiction over the offense charged since the Information failed to state where the offended party was residing and/or the place where the written defamation was printed and first published.
Venue is jurisdictional in criminal actions such that the place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action but constitutes an essential element of jurisdiction. This principle acquires even greater import in libel cases, given that Article 360[16] of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, specifically provides for the possible venues for the institution of the criminal and civil aspects of such cases.[17] Thus, venue of libel cases where the complainant is a private individual is limited to only either of two places, namely: 1) where the complainant actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense; or 2) where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published.[18]
The Information for libel against the petitioner, as quoted at the outset, does not allege that the offended party was actually residing in Baguio City at the time that the alleged libelous article was posted at the website of the Baguio Boys Cockers Club, or that the same was posted and first published in Baguio City. It can neither be inferred from the allegation that the offended party, herein private respondent Frederick D. Pati, was actually residing in Baguio City when the alleged crime was committed.
The Court does not agree with the court a quo that the defects in the Information can merely be amended upon the petitioner’s surrender or posting of bail. As ruled in Agustin vs. Pamintuan,[19] “the absence of any allegations in the Informations that the offended party was actually residing in Baguio City, where the crimes charged were allegedly committed, is a substantial defect. Indeed, the amendments of the Informations to vest jurisdiction upon the court cannot be allowed.”
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed 12 December 2012 and 27 February 2013 Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 3, in Criminal Case No. 28483-R are hereby SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 3, is hereby DIRECTED to reinstate Criminal Case No. 28483-R in its active docket and thereafter QUASH the Information and DISMISS the same.
SO ORDERED.
Barrios, and Diy, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-13.
[2] Rollo, pp 16-17.
[3] Rollo, p. 18.
[4] Rollo, pp. 19-22.
[5] Rollo, pp. 23-24.
[6] Rollo, pp. 25-27.
[7] Rollo, pp. 28-30.
[8] Order, pp. 2-3; Rollo, pp. 29-30.
[9] Petition, p. 4; Rollo, p. 7.
[10] Rollo, pp. 42-43.
[11] Vda. De Bacaling vs. Laguna, 54 SCRA 243, p. 251 [1973 ]; Bacelonia vs. CA, 397 SCRA 286, p. 291 [2003 ].
[12] Cuison vs. CA, 289 SCRA 159, p. 171 [1998 ]; Benito vs. COMELEC, 349 SCRA 705, p. 712 [2001 ].
[13] Republic vs. Cocofed, 372 SCRA 462, p. 493 [2001 ].
[14] G.R. No. 164170, April 16, 2009.
[15] G.R. No. 158763, March 31, 2006.
[16] Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 4363 –
Art. 360. Persons responsible.— Any person who shall publish, exhibit or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be responsible for the same. The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial publication, shall be responsible for the defamations contained therein to the same extent as if he were the author thereof. The criminal action and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations, as provided for in this chapter shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense. x x x.
[17] Bonifacio, et al. vs. RTC of Makati City, Branch 149, G.R. No. 184800, May 5, 2010.
[18] Agustin vs. Pamintuan, G.R. No. 164938, August 22, 2005.
[19] G.R. No. 156747, February 23, 2005.