A.M. No. MTJ-03-1489. March 31, 2004.
Dr. Francisca T. Yoingco and Atty. Nescito C. Hilario, complainants, vs. Hon. Concepcion V. Gonzaga, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court of Sto. Tomas, Batangas, respondent.

FACTS

Complainants charged respondent Judge Concepcion V. Gonzaga with Grave Abuse of Authority and Gross Ignorance of the Law relative to four B.P. 22 cases filed against Dr. Yoingco. Before arraignment, Dr. Yoingco filed a Motion to Quash, arguing the MTC of Sto. Tomas, Batangas lacked territorial jurisdiction as the checks were issued, presented, and dishonored in Makati City. Respondent Judge denied the motion in an Order dated February 19, 2002. She ruled the ground was improper venue, not jurisdiction, citing the civil case of Dacoycoy vs. IAC, and held the objection was waived for not being raised at the first instance. She subsequently set arraignment, which experienced delays.
Complainants alleged the judge violated the right to speedy trial under R.A. 8493 and Supreme Court Circulars. They further contended her Order exhibited gross ignorance by conflating venue with territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases and by failing to include material findings. Complainants later filed a Notice of Withdrawal, but the Office of the Court Administrator proceeded with the administrative case.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law for erroneously denying a Motion to Quash based on a fundamental mistake regarding territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law. The Supreme Court found her denial of the Motion to Quash patently erroneous. Her ruling confused the concepts of venue in civil and criminal proceedings. In criminal law, venue is jurisdictional. An offense must be tried by the court within whose territorial jurisdiction it was committed. Unlike in civil cases, venue in criminal cases cannot be waived; it is an essential element of jurisdiction. Respondent’s application of the Dacoycoy doctrine, a civil case ruling that a court cannot motu proprio dismiss on grounds of improper venue, was a glaring error demonstrating a lack of familiarity with basic criminal procedure.
This ignorance of a fundamental legal principle eroded public confidence in the court’s competence. However, considering it was her first offense, absent any showing of malice, bad faith, or corrupt motive, and noting the motion was ultimately denied (albeit for wrong reasons) without proof of undue injury, the Court imposed the penalty of reprimand with a stern warning.