Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROSA UY v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 143647 2005-11-11	YUSUKE FUKUZUME v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Makati for that matter. Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction.[36] Citing Uy vs. Court of Appeals,[37] we held in the fairly recent case of Macasaet vs. People[38] that:It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases the offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense allegedly committed therein by the accused. Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense allegedly committed outside of that limited territory. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. And once it is so shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case. However, if the evidence adduced during the trial show that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.[39] (Emphasis supplied) Where life or liberty is affected by its proceedings, the court must keep strictly within the limits of the law authorizing it to take jurisdiction and to try the case and to render judgment.[40]
	GR NO. 164938 2005-08-22	VICTOR C. AGUSTIN v. FERNANDO VIL PAMINTUAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction.[10] The jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by the allegations in 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.[11]
	GR NO. 156747 2005-02-23	ALLEN A. MACASAET v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In criminal actions, it is a fundamental rule that venue is jurisdictional. Thus, the place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction.[35] In the case of Uy v. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines,[36] this Court had the occasion to expound on this principle, thus:It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases the offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense allegedly committed therein by the accused. Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense allegedly committed outside of that limited territory. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. And once it is so shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case. However, if the evidence adduced during the trial show that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.[37]