Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 96 views

    Bonifacio V RTC Makati Digest

    Uploaded by

    Alexa Torrillo
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Regional Trial Court of Makati gravely abused its discretion in allowing an amended information that failed to establish proper venue. Venue is jurisdictional in criminal libel cases, which is limited to either where the complainant resides or where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published. The amended information only stated that the complainant accessed the offending online article in Makati, but did not allege it was printed or published there. Allowing such a broad interpretation of venue would undermine the purpose of limiting venue to prevent inconveniencing defendants through distant libel suits. The RTC therefore did not have proper jurisdiction over the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bonifacio V RTC Makati Digest

    Uploaded by

    Alexa Torrillo
    96 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Regional Trial Court of Makati gravely abused its discretion in allowing an amended information that failed to establish proper venue. Venue is jurisdictional in criminal libel cases, which is limited to either where the complainant resides or where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published. The amended information only stated that the complainant accessed the offending online article in Makati, but did not allege it was printed or published there. Allowing such a broad interpretation of venue would undermine the purpose of limiting venue to prevent inconveniencing defendants through distant libel suits. The RTC therefore did not have proper jurisdiction over the case.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    14. Bonifacio v RTC Makati digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the Regional Trial Court of Makati gravely abused its discretion in allowing an amended information that failed to establish proper venue. Venue is jurisdictional in criminal libel cases, which is limited to either where the complainant resides or where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published. The amended information only stated that the complainant accessed the offending online article in Makati, but did not allege it was printed or published there. Allowing such a broad interpretation of venue would undermine the purpose of limiting venue to prevent inconveniencing defendants through distant libel suits. The RTC therefore did not have proper jurisdiction over the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    96 views1 page

    Bonifacio V RTC Makati Digest

    Uploaded by

    Alexa Torrillo
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Regional Trial Court of Makati gravely abused its discretion in allowing an amended information that failed to establish proper venue. Venue is jurisdictional in criminal libel cases, which is limited to either where the complainant resides or where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published. The amended information only stated that the complainant accessed the offending online article in Makati, but did not allege it was printed or published there. Allowing such a broad interpretation of venue would undermine the purpose of limiting venue to prevent inconveniencing defendants through distant libel suits. The RTC therefore did not have proper jurisdiction over the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    [14] : BONIFACIO VS RTC MAKATI

    G.R. No. 184800, May 5, 2010


    Brion, J.

    FACTS:
    Petitioners Bonifacio et al were charged with the crime of libel after private respondent
    Gimenez, on behalf of Yuchengco family and Malayan Insurance Co., filed a criminal complaint
    before the Makati City Prosecutor for libel under Article 355 in relation to Article 353 of the
    Revised Penal Code .
    The complaint alleged that petitioners, together with several John Does, publicly and maliciously
    with intention of attacking the honesty, virtue, honor and integrity, character and reputation of
    Malayan Insurance Co. Inc., and Yuchengco family for exposing them to public hatred and
    contempt, and published in the said website http://www.pepcoalition.com a defamatory article
    persuading the public to remove their investments and policies from the said company. This is
    after the petitioners filed to seek their redress for their pecuniary loss under the policies they
    obtained from the company. Makati City Prosecutor, after finding probable cause to indict the
    petitioners, filed separate information against them.
    Petitioners filed before the respondent RTC of Makati a Motion to Quash on the grounds that it
    failed to vest jurisdiction on the Makati RTC; the acts complained of in the Information are not
    punishable by law since internet libel is not covered by Article 353 of the RPC. Petitioners
    maintained that the Information failed to allege a particular place within the trial courts
    jurisdiction where the subject article was printed and first published or that the offended parties
    resided in Makati at the time the alleged defamatory material was printed and first published,
    and the prosecution erroneously laid the venue of the case in the place where the offended
    party accessed the internet-published article.

    ISSUE: Did the RTC of Makati acted with grave abuse of discretion in admitting the amended
    information despite the failure to allege that the libelous articles were printed and first published
    by the accused in Makati?

    RULING: YES. Venue is jurisdictional in criminal actions such that the place where the crime
    was committed determines not only the venue of the action but constitutes an essential element
    of jurisdiction. The venue of libel cases where the complainant is a private individual is limited
    to only either of two places, namely: 1) where the complainant actually resides at the time of the
    commission of the offense; or 2) where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first
    published.
    The Amended Information in the case opted to lay the venue by stating that the offending article
    was first published and accessed by the private complainant in Makati City. In other words, it
    considered the phrase to be equivalent to the requisite allegation of printing and first publication.
    This is wrong. For the court to hold that the Amended Information sufficiently vested
    jurisdiction in the courts of Makati simply because the defamatory article was accessed therein
    would open the floodgates to the libel suit being filed in all other locations where
    the pepcoalition website is likewise accessed or capable of being accessed. This goes against the
    purpose as to why Republic Act No. 4363 was enacted. It lays down specific rules as to the
    venue of the criminal action so as to prevent the offended party in written defamation cases from
    inconveniencing the accused by means of out-of-town libel suits, meaning complaints filed in
    remote municipal courts

    You might also like