This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-02-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Anent private respondent and OSG's contention that the supplemental affidavit submitted during the preliminary investigation of this libel suit cured the defect of the information, we find the same to be without merit. It is jurisprudentially settled that jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information.[41] In resolving a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction, the general rule is that the facts contained in the complaint or information should be taken as they are.[42] The exception to this rule is where the Rules of Court allow the investigation of facts alleged in a motion to quash[43] such as when the ground invoked is the extinction of criminal liability, prescriptions, double jeopardy, or insanity of the accused.[44] In these instances, it is incumbent upon the trial court to conduct a preliminary trial to determine the merit of the motion to dismiss. As the present case obviously does not fall within any of the recognized exceptions, the trial court correctly dismissed this action. | |||||