6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly it originally denied petitioner's Motion to Quash. This Court is, thus, baffled by the fact that the RTC reversed itself upon the petitioner's motion for reconsideration on the same ground that it previously invalidated. Likewise, with the case of Estafa arising from such illegal recruitment activities, the outright dismissal thereof due to lack of jurisdiction was not proper, considering that as per the allegations in the Information, the same was within the jurisdiction of Manila. During the preliminary investigation of the cases, respondent even presented evidence that some of the essential elements of the crime were committed within Manila, such as the payment of processing and/or placement fees, considering that these were deposited in certain banks located in Manila.[68] Thus, it bears stressing that the trial court should have proceeded to take cognizance of the case, and if during the trial it was proven that the offense was committed somewhere else, that is the time that the trial court should dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.[69] Undoubtedly, such erroneous outright dismissal of the case is a nullity for want of due process. The prosecution and the respondent as the private offended party were not given the opportunity to present and prosecute their case. Indeed, the prosecution and the private offended party are as much entitled to due process as the accused in a criminal case.[70] The respondent has the legal personality to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. This procedural issue is not novel. There is no question that, generally, the prosecution cannot appeal or bring error proceedings from a judgment rendered in favor of the defendant in a criminal case due to the final and executory nature of a judgment of acquittal and the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.[71] Despite acquittal, however, the offended party or the accused may appeal, but only with respect to the civil aspect of the decision.[72] This Court has also entertained petitions for certiorari questioning the acquittal of the accused in, or the dismissal of, criminal cases upon clear showing that the lower court, in acquitting the accused, committed not merely errors of judgment but also grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a denial of due process, thus rendering the assailed judgment void.[73] When the order of dismissal is annulled or set aside by an appellate court in an original special civil action via certiorari, the right of the accused against double jeopardy is not violated.[74] In as early as the 1989 case of People v. Santiago,[75] this Court has ruled that a private offended party can file a special civil action for certiorari questioning the trial court's order acquitting the accused or dismissing the case, viz.: In such special civil action for certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, wherein it is alleged that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction or on other jurisdictional elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63079 9/16