THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ROQUE L. DIPAY, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Zamboanga, convicting appellant Roque L. Dipay of a violation of section 2703 of
the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 455, and
sentencing him to six months imprisonment and a fine of P600, with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. The case has been
certified to us by the Court of Appeals on the ground that it involves a
question of jurisdiction.

The record shows that the case began with the filingr of. an information by
the City Attorney of Zamboanga charging the appellant with the, violation
mentioned. Appellant having waived preliminary investigation, he was bound over
to the Court of. First Instance of Zamboanga, where a special counsel of the
city filed an information charging him with a violation of section 2303 of the
Administrative Code (as amended by Republic Act No. 455), alleged to have been
committed as follows:

“That on or about the 15th day of August, 1951, and within the jurisdiction
of this Court, viz., in the City of Zamboanga; Philippines, the above named
accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and fraudulently
and knowingly buy 81 cartons of Herald Cigarettes manufactured in the United
States, the same having been imported contrary to law, thereby depriving the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines of the lawful duty or any portion
thereof accruing from the said merchandise.”

Obviously, the criminal act charged in the body of the information, which is
that of buying cigarettes knowing that they have been illegally imported, falls
squarely. under section 2702 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended,
which reads:

“Sec. 2702. Unlawful importation of merchandise. Any person who shall
fraudulently or knowingly import or bring into the Philippines, or assist in so
doing, any merchandise, contrary to law, or shall receive, conceal, buy, sell,
or in any manner facilitate the transportation, concealment, or sale of such
merchandise after, importation, knowing the same to have been imported contrary
to law, shall be punished by a fine of not less.than P600 but not more than
P5,000 and by imprisonment for not less than 3 months nor more than 2 years and,
if the offender is an alien, he may be subject to deportation.

“When, upon trial for a violation of this sectlorifthe defendant is shown
have or to have had possession of the merchandise in question, such possession
shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction, unless the
defendant shall explain the possession to the satisfaction of the
court.

The act charged does not come under section 2703 and much less under section
2303 of the same code, for which reason the triaI court, at the commencement of
the hearing, allowed the information to be amended by having it stated therein
that the legal provision violated is section 2702. It was under the information
as so amended that appellant was tried.

It is clear then that appellant went to trial on a charge that he had
violated section 2702 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended, by buying
imported cigarettes knowing them to have been illegally imported But while the
information alleged that the illegal purchase was made “in the City of Zamboanga
and the trial was held in that city, the evidence shows that the said illegal
purchase was made in Sitangkay’in the Province of Sulu.

In the case of Beltran vs. Ramos (50 Off Gaz No 12 p. 5762), this
Court held that the accused should be tried in the province where the offense
was committed. The Court said:

“The repondent contends that the provinces of Occidental and Oriental Mindoro
constitute the” Eighth Judicial District under the provisions of the Judiciary
Act of 1948 (Republic Act No. 296). There being: no separate court for the
Province of Occidental Mindoro, it is claimed that the judge of the district may
hold his sessions in either of the two provinces. This contention is untenable
in the present case for the reason that the Rules of Court expressly provide
that a criminal case should be instituted and tried in the municipality or
province where the offense was committed or any of its essential ingredients
took place. This is a fundamental principle, the purpose Being not to compel the
defendant to move to, and appear in a different court from that of the province
where the crime was committed, as it would cause him great inconvenience in
looking for his witnesses and other evidence in another place. Although the
judge of a district may hold sessions in any part of said district, yet he
should hold the trial in any particular case subject to the specific provisions
of section 14(a), Rule 106, in order’ not to violate the Rules of Court
and’ disregard the fundamental rights of the accused. Sometimes a judicial
district includes provinces far distant from each other. Under the theory of
respondent, the accused may be subjected to the great inconvenience of going to
a lar distant province with all his witnesses to attend the trial there. This is
prohibited by the Rules of Court as being unfair to the defendant.

“There is no contradiction between the Judiciary Act and Rule 106, section
14(a). They should, therefore, be1 enforced together harmoniously.”

Conformably to the above ruling, the present case should have been tried in
Sulu and not in Zamboanga.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is set aside and the case remanded to
the court below for proper trial. No costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Concepcion, and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.