Manila
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 136994, September 17, 2002 ]
BRAULIO ABALOS, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
R E S O L U T I O N
QUISUMBING, J.:
This petition for review assails the consolidated decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated August 10, 1998, in CA-G.R. SP No. 42482 and CA-G.R. SP No. 43237. The CA had dismissed for lack of merit petitioner’s separate appeals from the order of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Pangasinan, Branch 40, in Civil Case No. 95-00752-D, and the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 69, in Civil Case No. 17576.
The antecedents of this petition, based on the findings summarized by the Court of Appeals, duly supported by the records, are as follows:
On November 11, 1994, an Information for Falsification of Private Documents was filed against the accused–appellant Braulio Abalos (hereinafter referred to as the accused-appellant) before the Municipal Trial Court of Dagupan City, which was docketed as Criminal Case No. 22707. The information alleged-
That on or about the 12th day of July, 1994, in the City of Dagupan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, ENGR. BRAULIO ABALOS, with intent to cause damage to the heirs of Roman Soriano of Lingayen, Pangasinan, among them is EVELYN C. SORIANO, complainant herein, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally, cause(d) the production of and the filling in of entries on Cash Receipts Nos. 39185, 39414 and 41775 of the Pangasinan Photostat, and thereafter offered the same to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37 of Lingayen, Pangasinan, as supporting documents to his Bill of Cost in Civil Case No. 15958, giving the impression to the court that the receipts were authentic when in fact, to his own knowledge, they were not, thereby making untruthful statements in a narration of fact; that as a consequence thereof, the adverse party in Civil Case No. 15958, represented by EVELYN C. SORIANO, sustained damages.1aшphi1
Thereafter, or on December 12, 1994, another Information for Falsification of Private Document was filed against the accused-appellant before the Municipal Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, docketed as Criminal Case No. 10024.
Meanwhile, on June 5, 1995, during his arraignment before the Dagupan Municipal Trial Court, the accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty. On August 7, 1995, he filed a Motion to Quash, arguing that the Municipal Trial Court had no jurisdiction over the offense charged.…
On October 20, 1995, the Municipal Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 2, ordered the quashal of Criminal Case No. 22707 for lack of jurisdiction. Private complainant’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied on November 20, 19951aшphi1.
On January 3, 1996, private complainant filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City. On May 14, 1996, the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 40 issued the Order now on appeal, reversing and setting aside the October 20, 1995 and November 20, 1995 Orders of the Municipal Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 2, in Criminal Case No. 22707….
x x x
On the other hand, after the filing of the Information before the Lingayen court, the accused-appellant filed a Motion to Quash x x x. The court a quo denied the Motion to Quash in its Order of September 8, 1996. Undaunted, the accused-appellant went on Certiorari to the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 69 which rendered a Decision on October 28, 1996, dismissing the Petition for Certiorari of the accused-appellant for lack of merit.2
Twice rebuffed by two different trial courts, petitioner appealed the said cases to the Court of Appeals. The appeal in Criminal Case No. 22707 was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 42482, while that in Criminal Case No. 10024 was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 43237. On February 22, 1997, petitioner moved to consolidate the two appeals, which the Court of Appeals granted on April 4, 1997.
On August 10, 1998, the Court of Appeals promulgated the assailed decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, both Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 42482 and 43237 are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.3
On December 14, 1998, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
Hence, the present petition, where petitioner ascribes the following errors to the Court of Appeals:
I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONCLUDING AND RULING THAT:
(a) UNDER THE FACTS OF THE CASE AT BENCH (sic), BOTH MTC LINGAYEN AND MTCC DAGUPAN “HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE RESPECTIVE INFORMATION FILED FOR FALSIFICATION OF PRIVATE DOCUMENTS”;
(b) THAT THE FACTS CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION IN THE MTC LINGAYEN AND IN THE INFORMATION IN THE MTCC DAGUPAN DO NOT CONSTITUTE ONLY ONE CRIME OF FALSIFICATION OF PRIVATE DOCUMENTS; AND
(c) THAT IN THE CASE AT BENCH (sic), “EACH FALSIFICATION COMMITTED ON EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL RECEIPTS AND VOUCHERS CONSTITUTES A SEPARATE CRIME EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY HAVE BEEN COMMITTED IN THE COURSE OF A CONTINUOUS TRANSACTION ON THE SAME DATE OR EVEN ON THE SAME PIECE OF PAPER”.
II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONCLUDING AND RULING THAT THE COMPLAINANT EVELYN C. SORIANO AND THE PEOPLE ARE NOT GUILTY OF FORUM SHOPPING IN THE FILING OF TWO INFORMATIONS FOR ONE AND SAME OFFENSE IN TWO DIFFERENT BRANCHES OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT.
III. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THE RULING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN THE DECISION APPEALED FROM, THAT THE FALSIFICATION OF EACH RECEIPT AND EACH INVOICE CONSTITUTES A SEPARATE OFFENSE, THE INFORMATION IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 10024, MTC LINGAYEN IS DISMISSIBLE FOR CHARGING MORE THAN ONE OFFENSE, AND THE DISMISSAL OF CRIMINAL CASE NO. 22707 MTCC DAGUPAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED.4
The main issue to be resolved is whether MTCC-Dagupan and MTC-Lingayen have jurisdiction over the crimes allegedly committed by petitioner. In this connection, we must also resolve whether the filing of separate complaints supported by the identical affidavits and annexes to the informations filed in two courts constitutes forum shopping. Lastly, we must also determine whether the respective informations in Lingayen as well as in Dagupan, MTCC, were dismissible for multiplicity of offenses merged in one information.
Primarily, petitioner assails the assumption of jurisdiction over the criminal cases for falsification by the MTCC-Dagupan and the MTC- Lingayen. He argues that both courts could not have simultaneous jurisdiction over his case. He avers that only one crime was committed pursuant to the unified and indivisible nature of the criminal intent proved.
Petitioner also contends that the filing of two separate complaints using the same complaint-affidavit and supported by the same annexes constitutes forum shopping. He points out that if indeed the acts committed by him constitute several offenses, then the informations filed against him in Criminal Cases Nos. 10024 and 22707 should be dismissed on the ground of “multiplicity of felonies charged in a single information.”5
For the respondent, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) avers that both MTCC-Dagupan and MTC-Lingayen have properly assumed jurisdiction over petitioner’s criminal cases since these involved different acts of falsification, where some were committed in Dagupan and others in Lingayen. The OSG adds that each falsified document constitutes one separate act of falsification, such that “there could be as many acts of falsification as there are … falsified documents.”6 Citing People vs. Madrigal-Gonzales, 7 SCRA 942 (1963), the OSG contends that in this case, the use of several falsified documents during one occasion does not diminish the number of acts of falsification that petitioner had committed.7
On the issue of jurisdiction, we find enlightening the findings of the Court of Appeals:
Stripped to the core, the issue in these consolidated cases is whether or not the Dagupan and Lingayen trial courts have jurisdiction over the respective information for Falsification of Private Documents.
This question finds its answer in the case of Alfelor, Sr. vs. Intia, 70 SCRA 480, citing the case of Lopez vs. City Judge, 18 SCRA 616, where the Supreme Court stated:
x x x
It is settled law in criminal actions that the place where the criminal offense was committed not only determines the venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction (U.S. v. Pagdayuman, 5 Phil. 265). Thus, under the provisions of Section 86 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, municipal courts have original jurisdiction only over criminal offenses committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction.
x x x
Coming now to the cases at bench (sic), it is clear that both the Dagupan and Lingayen courts may exercise jurisdiction over the respective criminal cases filed before it.
In the Dagupan case involving the cash receipts issued by the Pangasinan Photostat of Dagupan City, the Information alleges that the offense was committed in Dagupan City. This suffices to give said court jurisdiction over the crime of falsification as charged. Petitioner’s argument that “the crime of falsification x x x arose ONLY when the intent to cause damage became evident, that is, when the receipts and invoices were ‘submitted in court as proof of the Bill of Costs”’ proves futile in light of the pronouncement in Lopez (supra), that the act of falsification is committed by the signing of the document and the coetaneous intent to cause damage and whether the falsified private document was thereafter put or not put to the illegal use for which it was intended is in no wise a material or essential element of the crime of falsification of a private document.
As for the Lingayen case, it appears that the subject invoices were issued by the Xerox Copying Machine of Lingayen, Pangasinan. Again, it suffices for jurisdiction to vest that the Information alleges that the crime of falsification, as charged, was committed within the municipality of Lingayen.8
A detailed disquisition could throw but little additional light on the issue of jurisdiction. Petitioner was charged with five counts of falsification. The first three, concerning Cash Receipts Nos. 39185, 39414, and 41775, were allegedly committed in Dagupan. The other two counts, involving Invoices Nos. 1070 and 1071, were allegedly committed in Lingayen. It is obvious the cases had to filed where the offenses had been committed, either in Dagupan or in Lingayen, respectively.
For jurisdiction to be acquired by a court in a criminal case, the offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients should have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The Dagupan court could not validly take cognizance of offenses committed in Lingayen. Nor could the Lingayen court legally entertain charges for acts done in Dagupan. The fact that the falsified receipts and invoices were allegedly used at the same time in one court proceedings (at the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Branch 7, in connection with Civil Case No. 15958) is of no moment. The offenses of falsification took place much earlier, separately, when the cash receipts were produced repetitively in Dagupan and Lingayen.
Likewise, considering that five separate offenses of falsification were involved, there can be no forum-shopping. It was erroneous for petitioner to argue that only one offense was committed. There are as many acts of falsification as there are documents falsified.9
The real problem, however, is why the first three offenses were lumped in a single information filed in Dagupan. Likewise, why were two offenses joined in a single information filed in Lingayen? Thus, petitioner now claims, with ostensible merit, that Section 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court was violated.10
The Rules of Court, particularly Rule 110, Section 13, indeed frowns upon multiple offenses being charged in a single information. However, petitioner failed to raise this issue during arraignment, in Lingayen as well as in Dagupan. His failure to do so amounts to a waiver, and his objection on this point can no longer be raised on appeal.11 In his Motion to Quash filed in Dagupan City, petitioner alleged lack of jurisdiction. On the other hand, in his Motion to Quash filed in Lingayen, petitioner alleged forum-shopping, double jeopardy, lack of jurisdiction, and that the facts do not constitute an offense. He only raised the issue of “multifariousness of offenses alleged” in his petition before this Court. By this time, his objection is belated, and obviously to no avail.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The consolidated decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 10, 1998, in CA-G.R. SP No. 42484 and CA-G.R. SP No. 43237, is AFFIRMED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, and Austria-Martinez, JJ., concur.
Callejo, Sr., J., no part. Concurred in subject decision.
Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 27-35.
2 CA Rollo, CA-G.R. SP No. 42482, pp. 68-69.
3 Rollo, p. 35.
4 Id. at 16-17.
5 Id. at 22.
6 Id. at 73.
7 Ibid.
8 Id. at 30-32.
9 People vs. Madrigal-Gonzales, et al., 7 SCRA 942, (1963).
10 Sec. 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court reads:
Sec. 13. Duplicity of offense.- A complaint or information must charge but one offense, except only in those cases in which existing laws prescribe a single punishment for various offenses.
11 People vs. Miana, et al., 50 Phil. 771, 777 (1927), See also People vs. Barruga, 61 Phil. 318, 330 (1935), People vs. Medina, 59 Phil. 134, 137-138 (1933), and People vs. Benito, 57 Phil. 587, 591 (1932).
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
