FOOTNOTES [17] Rodriguez v. Gadiane, 527 Phil. 691, 698 (2006). [19] Cu v. Ventura, 840 Phil. 650 (2018). [21] Id. at 325. [25] Id. at 621-623. [35] Id. at 860-862. [37] Id. at 603-606. [38] People v. Salico, 84 Phil. 722, 732-733 (1949). In this case, the Court explained that "[d]ismissal terminates the proceeding, either because the court is not a court of competent jurisdiction, or the evidence does not show that the offense was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, or the complaint or information is not valid or sufficient in form and substance, etc. x x x. If the prosecution fails to prove that the offense was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court and the case is dismissed, the dismissal is not an acquittal, inasmuch as if it were so the defendant could not be again prosecuted before the court of competent jurisdiction; and it is elemental that in such case the defendant may again be prosecuted for the same offense before a court of competent jurisdiction." [39] 384 Phil. 322 (2000). [40] Id. at 331-337. [41] 810 Phil. 187 (2017). [42] Id. at 200-204. [43] 442 Phil. 576 (2002). [45] 775 Phil. 192 (2015). [47] 527 Phil. 691 (2006). See Reflection of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, p. 9. [65] See Senate Blue Ribbon Committee v. Majaducon, 455 Phil. 61, 71 (2003). [66] Dissenting Opinion of then Associate Justice Claudio Teehankee in Chemplex (Phils.), Inc v. Hon. Pamatian, 156 Phil. 408, 457 (1974). [67] 398 Phil. 86 (2000). [68] Id. at 105-106. [70] Philippine National Bank v. Heirs of Late Spouses Entapa, 794 Phil. 526, 540 (2016). People v.