For the court to acquire jurisdiction over a criminal case, the offense or any of its essential elements should have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. This territorial jurisdiction of the court is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint or information. 
Facts: 

Neverio was charged with two counts of  rape committed against  AAA,  a mentally deficient lass. During trial, Neverio did not present any evidence but instead filed a Demurrer to Evidence with Leave of Court. The trial court denied the Demurrer to Evidence. Despite the said denial, the defense still chose not to present any evidence. Thereafter, instead of filing a memorandum, the defense adopted its Demurrer to Evidence as its memorandum. Neverio faults AAA for her failure to state the place where  the  alleged crime happened. He  maintains  that  the identification of the place where the crime was committed was necessary for vesting the court with jurisdiction over the case.


Issue:

Whether or not the identification of the place where the crime was committed was necessary for vesting the court with jurisdiction over the case.


Held:

No. For the court to acquire jurisdiction over a criminal case, the offense or any of its essential elements should have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. This territorial jurisdiction of the court is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint or information. In this case, the Informations clearly indicated that the acts of rape were committed in Barangay Sagurong, Pili, Camarines Sur. During trial, prosecution evidence showed that the molestations happened in AAAs house. And as testified by AAAs mother, their house was situated in Sagurong, Pili, Camarines Sur. Thus, AAAs inability to state her address in her testimony was trivial. Understandably, this failure was due only to her mental deficiency (People vs. Pepito Neverio, G.R. No. 182792, August 25, 2009)