6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly question the decision or action of the respondent court on jurisdictional grounds.[45] In line with this, the CA also ruled that there is no double jeopardy in this case as the charges were dismissed upon motion of the petitioner-accused.[46] As to the issue on jurisdiction, the CA ruled that the RTC has jurisdiction over the cases of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa, citing Section 9 of RA 8042, which provides that a criminal action arising from illegal recruitment may be filed in the place where the offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense.[47] According to the CA, it was established that herein respondent was residing in Sampaloc, Manila at the time of the commission of the crimes.[48] Therefore, the two (2) Informations herein were correctly filed with the RTC of Manila, pursuant to Section 9 of RA 8042.[49] The CA disposed, thus: WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The assailed Order dated January 26, 2012 and Resolution dated March 16, 2012 of the RTC, Manila, in Criminal Case No. 08-265539 for estafa and Criminal Case No. 08265540 for illegal recruitment respectively, are NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. The cases are REINSTATED and REMANDED to the court of origin for appropriate proceedings. SO ORDERED.[50] Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated November 6, 2013, thus: WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.[51] Hence, this Petition. Petitioner argues that the CA committed a reversible error and grave abuse of discretion in declaring that the respondent had the legal personality to assail the dismissal of the criminal cases as respondent is not the proper party to do so.[52] Petitioner argues that the OSG is the appellate counsel of the People of the Philippines in all criminal cases and as such, the appeal in the criminal aspect should be taken solely by the State and the private complainant is limited only to the appeal of the civil aspect.[53] According to the petitioner, respondent's action before the CA does not concern the civil aspect of the case but the validity of the RTC's Orders.[54] On the jurisdictional issue, the petitioner maintains that the RTC of Manila has no jurisdiction over the cases as the alleged acts constituting the crimes charged were elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63079 6/16