6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 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 a 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.[64] (emphasis ours) Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: SEC. 15. Place where action is to be instituted. - a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred. (emphasis ours) At the risk of being repetitive, Sec. 9 of RA 8042, however, fixed an alternative venue from that provided in Section 15(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, i.e., a criminal action arising from illegal recruitment may also be filed where the offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense and that the court where the criminal action is first filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts. [65] Despite the clear provision of the law, the RTC of Manila declared that it has no jurisdiction to try the cases as the illegal Recruitment and Estafa were not committed in its territory but in Kidapawan City.[66] We are, thus, one with the CA in finding that the RTC of Manila committed grave abuse of discretion and in fact, a palpable error, in ordering the quashal of the Informations. The express provision of the law is clear that the filing of criminal actions arising from illegal recruitment before the RTC of the province or city where the offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense is allowed. It goes without saying that the dismissal of the case on a wrong ground, indeed, deprived the prosecution, as well as the respondent as complainant, of their day in court. It has been found by both the RTC and the CA that the respondent resides in Manila; hence, the filing of the case before the RTC of Manila was proper. Thus, the trial court should have taken cognizance of the case, and if it will eventually be shown during trial that the offense was committed somewhere else, then the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.[67] As a matter of fact, the RTC is not unaware of the above-cited provision which allows the filing of the said case before the RTC of the city where the offended party resides at the time of the commission of the offense; hence, elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63079 8/16