Section 10. Place of commission of the offense. — The complaint or information is sufficient if it can be understood from its allegations that the offense was committed or some of the essential ingredients occurred at some place within the jurisdiction of the court, unless the particular place where it was committed constitutes an essential element of the offense or is necessary for its identification (Rule 110, Rules of Court).

Venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional

Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction. Hence, 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. (Navaja v. De Castro, G.R. No. 182926, June 22, 2015).


Reason for the rule

● The reason for this rule is two-fold. First, the jurisdiction of trial courts is limited to well-defined territories such that a trial court can only hear and try cases involving crimes committed within its territorial jurisdiction. Second, laying the venue in the locus criminis is grounded on the necessity and justice of having an accused on trial in the municipality of province where witnesses and other facilities for his defense are available. (Unionbank v. People, G.R. No. 192565, February 28, 2012)

● This is a fundamental principle, the purpose of which is not to compel the defendant to move to, and appear in, a different court from that of the province where the crime was committed as it would cause him great inconvenience in looking for his witnesses and other evidence in another place. (Campanano v. Datuin, G.R. No. 172142,  October 17, 2007)


Jurisdiction over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information

●It is doctrinal that in criminal cases, venue is an essential element of jurisdiction; and that the jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. 

For purposes of determining the place where the criminal action is to be instituted, Section 15(a) of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure of 2000 provides that "[s]ubject 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." (Campanano v. Datuin, G.R. No. 172142,  October 17, 2007, People vs. Neverio, G.R. No. 182792, August 25, 2009)

● In order to determine the jurisdiction of the court in criminal cases, the complaint must be examined for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the facts set out therein and the punishment provided for by law fall within the jurisdiction of the court where the complaint is filed. The jurisdiction of courts in criminal cases is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information, and not by the findings the court may make after the trial. (Buaya v. Polo, G. R. No. 75079, January 26, 1989, People vs. Magallanes, G.R. Nos. 118013-14, October 11, 1995, People vs. Judge Ocaya, G.R. No. L-47448, May 17, 1978)


Jurisdiction can neither be waived nor subjected to stipulation

●Venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases. It can neither be waived nor subjected to stipulation. The right venue must exist as a matter of law (People v. Taroy, G.R. No. 192466, September 7, 2011).


The offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court

● 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. 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 the 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.

In determining the venue where the criminal action is to be instituted and the court which has jurisdiction over it, Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

(a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court or municipality or territory where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred.

Section 10, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure pertinently states:

Sec. 10. Place of commission of the offense. – The complaint or information is sufficient if it can be understood from its allegations that the offense was committed or some of its essential ingredients occurred at some place within the jurisdiction of the court, unless the particular place where it was committed constitutes an essential element of the offense charged or is necessary for its identification.

In Union Bank of the Philippines v. People, the Court said that both provisions categorically place the venue and jurisdiction over criminal cases not only in the court where the offense was committed, but also where any of its essential ingredients took place. In other words, the venue of action and of jurisdiction are deemed sufficiently alleged where the Information states that the offense was committed or some of its essential ingredients occurred at a place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court (Navaja v. De Castro, G.R. No. 182926, June 22, 2015).


If the trial court has jurisdiction, it necessarily exercises jurisdiction over all matters that the law requires the court to resolve

If the trial court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the accused, and the crime was committed within its territorial jurisdiction, it necessarily exercises jurisdiction over all matters that the law requires the court to resolve. This includes the power to order the restitution to the offended party of real property located in another province (Lutgarda Cruz vs. People, G.R. No. 123340, August 29, 2002).