Previous 7 / 16 Next

6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly committed in Kidapawan City and not in Manila.[55] For her part, respondent argues that the argument as regards her legal personality in filing the petition for certiorari before the CA reveals that petitioner misunderstood the difference between an appeal and a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[56] In fact, respondent agrees with the petitioner that only the State, through the OSG, may file an appeal in a criminal case.[57] As an appeal is not available for a private complainant in a criminal case, an independent action through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, therefore, is available to the said aggrieved party. [58] Anent the jurisdictional issue, respondent again invokes Section 9 of RA 8042 which allows the filing of an action arising from illegal recruitment with the RTC of the complainant's residence.[59] The respondent further argues that as regards the charge of Estafa, considering that the same arose from the illegal recruitment activities, the said provision allows the filing thereof with the court of the same place where the Illegal Recruitment case was filed.[60] Besides, according to the respondent, since one of the essential elements of Estafa, i.e., damage or prejudice to the offended party, took place in Manila, as the offended party resides in Manila, the RTC of Manila has jurisdiction over the Estafa case.[61] Issues 1) Does the RTC of Manila have jurisdiction over the cases of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa? 2) Does the respondent, on her own, have legal personality to file the petition for certiorari before the CA? The Court's Ruling The issues shall be discussed ad seriatim. The RTC of Manila has jurisdiction over the cases of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa Indeed, venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction.[62] As explained by this Court in the case of Foz, Jr. v. People:[63] 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. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63079 7/16

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Eileen P. David vs. Glenda S. Marquez

Jurisprudence

Case number: G.R. No. 209859

Division: PH Supreme Court Third Division

Date of decision: Jun 5, 2017

Year of decision: 2017

Nature of the case: ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT

MRO Case Type

Estafa
Illegal recruitment
Petition for review on Certiorari by the Supreme Court (Rule 45 of the Rules of Court)

Summary of outcome: This case is procedural in nature. Complainant Glenda S. Marquez's actions for Illegal Recruitment and Estafa against Eileen P. David were quashed before the lower court (Regional Trial Court), which ruled that it had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the cases.

While ordinarily, venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional, and that actions should be filed in the locality or place where the offense occurred, an exception lies under Republic Act No. 8042 (or the "Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act"), 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.

Since the Supreme Court established that the RTC has jurisdiction over the Illegal Recruitment and Estafa cases, it ordered the trial court to resume hearing the cases.

Observatory: Migrant Workers Rights

Ponente: TIJAM, J.

Notes: The acts complained of took place in Kidapawan City, Cotabato.

Primary Documents

2017_Eileen P. David vs. Glenda S. Marquez,_June.pdf
English
Download View

Commission on Human Rights

Select target paragraph3

Eileen P. David vs. Glenda S. Marquez

Primary Documents

Notifications