contempt and ridicule, write and publish in the regular issue of said daily publication on July 5, 1994,
a certain article entitled "MEET DR. PORTIGO, COMPANY PHYSICIAN...."
The allegations in the Information that "Panay News, a daily publication with a considerable
circulation in the City of Iloilo and throughout the region" only showed that Iloilo was the place
where Panay News was in considerable circulation but did not establish that the said publication was
printed and first published in Iloilo City.
In Chavez v. Court of Appeals,16 which involved a libel case filed by a private individual with the RTC
of Manila, a portion of the Information of which reads:
That on or about March 1995, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused [Baskinas and
Manapat] conspiring and confederating with others whose true names, real identities and present
whereabouts are still unknown and helping one another, with malicious intent of impeaching the
honesty, virtue, character and reputation of one FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, former Solicitor General of
the Philippines, and with the evident purpose of injuring and exposing him to public ridicule, hatred
and contempt, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and maliciously cause to be published in "Smart
File," a magazine of general circulation in Manila, and in their respective capacity as Editor-in-Chief
and Author-Reporter, ....17
the Court ruled that the Information did not sufficiently vest jurisdiction in the RTC of Manila to hear
the libel charge in consonance with Article 360. The Court made the following disquisition:
x x x Still, a perusal of the Information in this case reveals that the word "published" is utilized in the
precise context of noting that the defendants "cause[d] to be published in 'Smart File', a magazine of
general circulation in Manila." The Information states that the libelous articles were published in
Smart File, and not that they were published in Manila. The place "Manila" is in turn employed to
situate where Smart File was in general circulation, and not where the libel was published or first
printed. The fact that Smart File was in general circulation in Manila does not necessarily establish
that it was published and first printed in Manila, in the same way that while leading national dailies
such as the Philippine Daily Inquirer or the Philippine Star are in general circulation in Cebu, it does
not mean that these newspapers are published and first printed in Cebu. 1avvphi1
Indeed, if we hold that the Information at hand sufficiently vests jurisdiction in Manila courts since the
publication is in general circulation in Manila, there would be no impediment to the filing of the libel
action in other locations where Smart File is in general circulation. Using the example of the Inquirer
or the Star, the granting of this petition would allow a resident of Aparri to file a criminal case for libel
against a reporter or editor in Jolo, simply because these newspapers are in general circulation in
Jolo. Such a consequence is precisely what Rep. Act No. 4363 sought to avoid. 18
In Agustin v. Pamintuan,19 which also involved a libel case filed by a private individual, the Acting
General Manager of the Baguio Country Club, with the RTC of Baguio City where the Information
therein alleged that the libelous article was "published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, a newspaper
of general circulation in the City of Baguio and the entire Philippines," the Court did not consider the
Information sufficient to show that Baguio City was the venue of the printing and first publication of
the alleged libelous article.
Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code as amended provides that a private individual may also file
the libel case in the RTC of the province where he actually resided at the time of the commission of
the offense. The Information filed against petitioners failed to allege the residence of Dr. Portigo.
While the Information alleges that "Dr. Edgar Portigo is a physician and medical practitioner in Iloilo
City," such allegation did not clearly and positively indicate that he was actually residing in Iloilo City
at the time of the commission of the offense. It is possible that Dr. Portigo was actually residing in
another place.
Again, in Agustin v. Pamintuan,20 where the Information for libel alleged that the "offended party was
the Acting General Manager of the Baguio Country Club and of good standing and reputation in the
community," the Court did not find such allegation sufficient to establish that the offended party was
actually residing in Baguio City. The Court explained its ruling in this wise:
The residence of a person is his personal, actual or physical habitation or his actual residence or
place of abode provided he resides therein with continuity and consistency; no particular length of
time of residence is required. However, the residence must be more than temporary. The term
residence involves the idea of something beyond a transient stay in the place; and to be a resident,
one must abide in a place where he had a house therein. To create a residence in a particular place,
two fundamental elements are essential: The actual bodily presence in the place, combined with a
freely exercised intention of remaining there permanently or for an indefinite time. While it is possible
that as the Acting General Manager of the Baguio Country Club, the petitioner may have been
actually residing in Baguio City, the Informations did not state that he was actually residing therein
when the alleged crimes were committed. It is entirely possible that the private complainant may
have been actually residing in another place. One who transacts business in a place and spends
considerable time thereat does not render such person a resident therein. Where one may have or
own a business does not of itself constitute residence within the meaning of the statute. Pursuit of
business in a place is not conclusive of residence there for purposes of venue.21
Settled is the rule that jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations of
the complaint or information, and the offense must have been committed or any one of its essential
ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. 22 Considering that the Information
failed to allege the venue requirements for a libel case under Article 360, the Court finds that the
RTC of Iloilo City had no jurisdiction to hear this case. Thus, its decision convicting petitioners of the
crime of libel should be set aside for want of jurisdiction without prejudice to its filing with the court of
competent jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 24, 2004 and the
Resolution dated April 8, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 22522 are SET ASIDE on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Iloilo City.
Criminal Case No. 44527 is DISMISSED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Acting Chief Justice
Footnotes
* Designated as an additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-
Nazario, per Special Order No. 720 dated October 5, 2009.
1
Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., with Associate Justices Arsenio J.
Magpale and Mariflor Punzalan-Castillo, concurring; rollo, pp. 37-46.
2
Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr,, with Associate Justices Arsenio J.
Magpale and Isaias P. Dicdican, concurring; rollo, p. 47.
3
Records, pp. 1-3.
4
Id.
5
Id. at 56.
6
Penned Judge Tito G. Gustilo; CA rollo, pp. 13-28.
7
Id. at 28.
8
Records, pp. 429-430.
9
Rollo, pp. 15-16.
10
G.R. No. 143647, November 11, 2005, 474 SCRA 570.
11
Id. at 583-584.
G.R. No. 156747, February 23, 2005, 452 SCRA 255, 271, citing Uy v. Court of
12
Appeals, 276 SCRA 367 (1997).
13
Macasaet v. People, supra, at 271.
14
178 Phil. 579 (1979).
15
Id. at 580.
16
G.R. No. 125813, February 6, 2007, 514 SCRA 279.
17
Id. at 282.
18
Id. at 290-291.
19
G.R. No. 164938, August 22, 2005, 467 SCRA 601.
20
Id.
21
Id. at 611-612.
22
Id. at 609.
