Previous 4 / 16 Next

6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration[22] of the said Order alleging that she just found out that there were two Informations filed against her, one for Illegal Recruitment in Criminal Case No. 08-265539[23] and another for Estafa[24] in Criminal Case No. 08-265540. Petitioner maintained that the alleged crimes were committed in Kidapawan City, not in Manila as alleged in the Informations. Petitioner further alleged that there is no showing that respondent is an actual resident of Manila but as per her Reply-Affidavit, Manila is merely her postal address.[25] Hence, petitioner again raised a jurisdictional issue in the said motion.[26] In an Order[27] dated January 26, 2012, this time in Criminal Cases Nos. 08-26553940, the RTC reconsidered its May 13, 2011 Order, finding that it had no jurisdiction to try the cases since the crimes of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa were not committed in its territory but in Kidapawan City, thus: WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. The Order of this Court dated May 13, 2011 is hereby RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. This case is ordered returned to the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court for proper disposition. SO ORDERED.[28] On the same date, the RTC also issued an Order[29] recalling the warrants of arrest issued against the petitioner, thus: Considering that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction over the aboveentitled cases, the Order of this Court dated December 11, 2008, pertaining to the issuance of Warrants of Arrest against herein accused is hereby cancelled (and) set aside. WHEREFORE, let the Warrants of Arrest issued in these cases be ordered RECALLED AND SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED.[30] Respondent, through the public prosecutor, then filed a Motion for Reconsideration[31] of the said Order, averring that while it appears in the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) pro-forma complaint affidavit that the alleged recruitment activities took place in Kidapawan City, it also appears in her Reply-Affidavit, that she deposited certain amounts in several banks in Manila for the name and account of petitioner as payments for employment processing and placement fees.[32] Thus, part elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63079 4/16

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: Hun 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