A practical, doctrine-based legal article in Philippine criminal-procedure context

I. Why venue and territorial jurisdiction matter in estafa

In Philippine criminal law, venue is not just a matter of convenience. As a rule, a criminal action must be instituted and tried in the place where the offense was committed, because territorial jurisdiction (the court’s authority over crimes committed within its geographic area) is a core condition for a valid prosecution.

If a case is filed in a place with no legally recognized link to any essential element of estafa, the court may lack territorial jurisdiction—creating a potentially fatal defect, even if the accused is otherwise answerable.

This topic becomes especially tricky in estafa because estafa is commonly committed through transactions that span multiple places (meetings in one city, bank transfers from another, delivery elsewhere, damage felt somewhere else), and because the “place of commission” depends on the kind of estafa charged.

II. Key concepts: jurisdiction vs venue vs territorial jurisdiction

1) Jurisdiction over the subject matter (power to try the offense)

This is determined by law—primarily:

The Judiciary Reorganization Act (B.P. Blg. 129, as amended), and
The Rules of Criminal Procedure (especially on which courts try which crimes), and
The penalty attached to the offense (for many crimes, including estafa).

For trial courts:

MTC/MeTC/MCTC/MTCC generally try offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding 6 years, subject to statutory exceptions.
RTC tries offenses outside the MTC’s jurisdiction.

For estafa, this becomes penalty-sensitive because penalties vary by modality and (often) by the amount of damage.

2) Venue (place of trial)

Venue is the locality where the action must be filed and tried, usually the place where the crime was committed.

3) Territorial jurisdiction (court’s geographic reach)

Territorial jurisdiction is the court’s authority to try crimes committed within its territory (its judicial region/branch’s area of assignment). In criminal cases, venue and territorial jurisdiction are tightly linked: filing in the wrong place often means the court has no territorial jurisdiction over the offense.

III. Governing procedural rule: where criminal actions must be instituted

The baseline rule (Rule 110, Rules of Criminal Procedure) is:

General rule: Criminal actions are instituted and tried in the court of the municipality/city where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred (the “essential ingredient” doctrine is crucial for transitory crimes like estafa).
Exception-based rules exist for crimes committed in transit (e.g., on a vehicle), and certain special statutory schemes (notably cybercrime).

IV. Estafa as a “transitory” or “continuing” crime (why multiple venues may be proper)

A. Transitory offenses

A crime is considered transitory when its essential acts/elements occur in different places. In such cases, venue may lie in any place where an essential ingredient happened.

Estafa often qualifies because:

The deceit can occur in one place,
The delivery/receipt of money or property in another,
The damage/prejudice may be suffered in still another.

B. Continuing crimes (delito continuado) and their effect

Sometimes multiple acts are treated as one continuing offense (e.g., repeated takings under a single criminal impulse against the same victim). If treated as a continuing crime, the aggregate conduct can influence:

Penalty (hence court level—MTC vs RTC), and
Venue, because the “essential ingredients” may be spread across multiple localities.

However, not every “series of acts” is a continuing crime. Whether acts are treated as one offense or several counts is fact-sensitive and doctrine-driven.

V. The elements of estafa (and why they control venue)

“Estafa” under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code is not a single fact pattern. Venue depends heavily on which kind of estafa is charged, because the “essential ingredients” differ.

Broadly, estafa revolves around:

Deceit or abuse of confidence, and
Damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation.

Where those occurred is the venue compass.

VI. Venue rules by common estafa modalities

1) Estafa by false pretenses or fraudulent acts (Article 315(2))

This includes many scams: misrepresentations, fraudulent representations, tricking someone into paying, delivering property, or signing documents.

Core idea for venue: Venue may lie where deceit was employed or where the damage was caused/suffered, provided those are tied to essential elements.

Practical anchors:

Where the accused made the false representation (in person, by phone call, by message) and it was received/relied upon as part of the inducement.
Where the victim parted with money/property because of that deceit.
Where the victim suffered actual prejudice (often where payment was made or where property was delivered).

Common scenario:

Accused in City A misrepresents by call/message.
Victim in City B receives and relies on it.
Victim pays by bank transfer from City B (or deposits in City C). Depending on proof, venue can be proper in City B (receipt/reliance + parting with money) and possibly City A (where deceit was initiated), and sometimes City C (if the deposit/delivery there is part of the essential ingredient chain).

Caution: Courts look for a real nexus to an essential ingredient, not a manufactured connection.

2) Estafa by postdated check / bouncing check as means to defraud (often litigated alongside B.P. 22)

Some estafa cases involve issuing a check as part of deceit (distinct from B.P. 22, which punishes the act of issuing a bouncing check regardless of deceit, though it commonly overlaps in real life).

Venue is often linked to:

Where the check was delivered as the means of inducement (delivery is commonly pivotal because it’s when the instrument operates as representation of payment),
Where the transaction occurred such that the victim parted with money/property due to the check,
Where damage is suffered.

Important distinction:

For B.P. 22, jurisprudence and statute-driven doctrine have their own venue rules commonly tied to issuance/delivery/dishonor and notice.
For estafa, venue analysis remains anchored in deceit + damage as essential ingredients.

3) Estafa by misappropriation or conversion (Article 315(1)(b))

This is the classic abuse of confidence estafa: money/property is received in trust, on commission, for administration, or under an obligation to deliver/return, and the receiver misappropriates or denies receipt.

Elements typically include:

Offender received money/property in trust/commission/administration or with duty to deliver/return,
Offender misappropriated/converted or denied receipt,
Misappropriation causes prejudice,
Demand is often evidentiary (commonly used to show misappropriation), but doctrine treats the obligation + conversion + prejudice as central.

Venue tends to attach to places like:

Where the property/money was received (because receipt in trust is an essential ingredient),
Where the property was supposed to be delivered/returned (because breach of that obligation and the resulting prejudice may be essential in context),
Where the prejudice occurred (often where the offended party should have received the return/delivery, or where the property owner is deprived).

Demand location: A common litigation mistake is treating the place of demand as automatically controlling venue. Demand is often important proof of conversion, but venue still hinges on where the essential ingredients occurred. Demand may coincide with the place where the obligation to return should be complied with, and that can be venue-relevant, but it is not a magic key by itself.

4) Estafa involving contracts with “venue stipulations”

Parties often stipulate in contracts that “venue shall be in ___.” In criminal prosecutions:

Parties cannot confer criminal jurisdiction or venue by contract.
But contractual stipulations may affect facts that matter (e.g., place of performance, place of delivery, where payment is due), which can in turn influence where damage or an essential ingredient occurs.

So: the stipulation does not control; the underlying transaction facts might.

VII. Online / electronic transactions: cyber-related venue complications

Many modern estafa cases involve:

social media marketplace scams,
online investment fraud,
phishing,
e-wallet transfers,
app-based deception.

When conduct falls within cybercrime coverage (e.g., computer systems used as a means), special statutory rules may broaden venue and jurisdiction. In practice:

If charged as Estafa under the RPC plus a cybercrime-related mode (or prosecuted under cybercrime procedural concepts), venue may be anchored in places such as:
- where any element was committed,
- where the computer system used is situated,
- where the data/damage is felt,
- or other statutorily recognized connecting factors.

Also, certain RTC branches are designated as cybercrime courts, affecting which RTC hears the case even if venue is proper in a given locality.

Practical takeaway: In online estafa fact patterns, prosecutors often choose venue where:

the victim received the deceitful communication, and/or
the victim sent the payment or was deprived of funds, and/or
the victim resides (depending on how the cybercrime rules are invoked and alleged).

Because cyber-related venue can be technical, the Information’s allegations become even more decisive.

VIII. Determining the proper trial court: MTC or RTC in estafa

Even if venue (place) is correct, you must also file in the proper level of court.

A. The general dividing line

If the maximum imposable penalty does not exceed 6 years, jurisdiction is generally in the MTC.
If it exceeds 6 years, it’s generally in the RTC.

B. Why this is tricky in estafa

Penalties for estafa depend on:

the specific paragraph/subparagraph (modality), and
frequently, the amount of damage (which was significantly adjusted by R.A. 10951, amending value brackets across the RPC).

So in practice:

Identify the precise estafa mode,
Determine the applicable penalty range under current law,
Identify whether that penalty places the case in MTC or RTC.

Practice tip: When amounts are near bracket thresholds, how the amount is alleged and proven can affect not just penalty, but trial court jurisdiction.

IX. Pleading venue correctly: what must appear in the Information

A criminal Information must allege facts showing:

the offense,
the acts/omissions complained of,
and the place of commission sufficient to show the court’s territorial jurisdiction.

For estafa, it is best practice to allege:

where the deceit was made (and where it was received/relied upon, if relevant),
where the money/property was delivered/received,
where the obligation to deliver/return should have been performed (for 315(1)(b) fact patterns),
where the damage occurred.

Why this matters: If venue is challenged, courts look first at the Information’s allegations (and then at evidence). A poorly drafted Information can invite dismissal or quashal—even if the “real story” could have supported a proper venue.

X. Challenging improper venue / lack of territorial jurisdiction

A. Remedies for the accused

Improper venue is typically raised via:

Motion to Quash (Rule 117), on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction over the offense (territorial jurisdiction problem).

Because territorial jurisdiction is fundamental, it is not something the parties can fix by agreement.

B. Practical realities

If the Information fails to allege facts showing the offense (or an essential ingredient) occurred within the court’s territory, it is vulnerable.
If the Information alleges venue facts but evidence later shows none of the essential ingredients happened there, acquittal/dismissal may follow for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

XI. Worked examples (how venue analysis actually runs)

Example 1: Marketplace scam via chat + bank transfer

Accused is in Quezon City, chats victim in Manila with false claims.
Victim in Manila transfers money via a bank app while in Manila.
Accused receives funds in an account maintained in Makati.

Possible proper venues (depending on allegations and proof):

Manila: victim received deceit + parted with money + suffered prejudice.
Quezon City: deceit initiated there (if tied as essential ingredient with competent proof).
Makati: may be arguable if the receipt of funds there is treated as an essential ingredient and properly alleged—but courts often scrutinize “bank location” theories unless clearly linked to an element.

Example 2: Estafa by misappropriation (money received in trust)

Money is handed to accused in Pasig to purchase goods and deliver to victim in Marikina.
Accused fails to deliver and refuses to return money. Possible proper venues:
Pasig: receipt in trust occurred there.
Marikina: place where delivery should have been made; prejudice felt there.

Example 3: Contract says “venue in Cebu City” but transaction is in Davao

Parties stipulate venue in Cebu.
All inducement, payment, delivery, and prejudice happen in Davao. Criminal venue will still track essential ingredients (likely Davao), not the stipulation.

XII. Practical checklist: choosing where to file an estafa complaint

Classify the estafa mode

False pretenses? Misappropriation? Check-related deceit?

Map the essential ingredients to specific places

Where was the deceit made and received?
Where did the victim part with money/property?
Where did the accused receive it (especially for 315(1)(b))?
Where should the obligation have been performed?
Where was prejudice suffered?

Pick venues with the strongest, provable nexus Choose the place where you can most clearly prove an essential ingredient occurred—usually:

place of payment/delivery by the victim, or
place of receipt in trust, or
place where delivery/return was due and prejudice was realized.

Confirm trial court level Compute maximum imposable penalty (including amount brackets as amended) to determine MTC vs RTC.
Draft the complaint/Information narrative to reflect venue facts Venue is won or lost not only in doctrine, but in allegation discipline.

XIII. Closing synthesis

In Philippine practice, the “proper venue” for estafa is determined less by labels (“where accused lives,” “where the bank is,” “where the contract says”) and more by a disciplined identification of where the essential ingredients of the specific estafa charged occurred.

Because estafa is often transitory, multiple venues can be legally valid—but not all are equally defensible. The best venue is typically the one where:

the prosecution can clearly allege and prove either deceit or receipt in trust (depending on the mode), and
the victim’s loss/prejudice is concretely established.

If you want, I can also provide:

a mode-by-mode allegation template for Information drafting (315(1)(b) vs 315(2)),
a decision-tree for venue selection in online scams,
and a motion-to-quash outline focused on territorial jurisdiction defenses.