Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1926 > August 1926 Decisions > G.R. No. 26143 August 7, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. RESTITUTO FAJARDO

049 Phil 206:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 26143. August 7, 1926. ]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RESTITUTO FAJARDO, Defendant-Appellee.

Attorney-General Jaranilla for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; JURISDICTION; JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURTS. — Under the provisions of section 1 of Act No. 2131, amending section 4 of Act No. 1627 as amended by section 4 of Act No. 2041 (English text) when the penalty imposed for the crime charged does not exceed six months, or a fine of P200, the justice of the peace has jurisdiction to try the case and render judgment, provided that the act charged was committed within his territorial jurisdiction. (Sec. 2, Act No. 2131.)

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; "ESTAFA.." — The accessories to the penalty of arresto mayor provided in article 61 of the Penal Code do not affect the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court in the present case of estafa, for they do not modify nor alter the nature of the penalty provided by the law. The accessory penalties do not determine the jurisdiction of the court in which the complaint is filed. What determines the jurisdiction of the court in criminal cases is the extent of the penalty which the law imposes for the misdemeanor, crime or violation charged in the complaint.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — In the case of United States v. Nobleza (8 Phil., 515) and United States v. Regala (28 Phil., 57), however, this court held that a justice of the peace has no jurisdiction to try a case of estafa committed by a justice of the peace although the penalty provided by law is only arresto mayor but that is because article 399 of the Penal Code provides as additional penalty, ranging from temporary disqualification in its maximum degree to perpetual special disqualification, for a Government employee who, taking advantage of his office, commits estafa.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; JEOPARDY; DISMISSAL. — The justice of the peace having, as he had, jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for estafa filed in the case, the trial court committed an error of law in holding that it had no jurisdiction to try the case on appeal; but its judgment, however, in dismissing the case on releasing the accused is unappealable for the reason that he was already in jeopardy, and therefore the motion for dismissal of the Attorney-General must be granted.


D E C I S I O N


VILLAMOR, J. :


Restituto Fajardo was convicted in the justice of the peace court of Baguio, Mountain Province, on the following complaint:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 5th day of April, 1926, in the City of Baguio, subprovince of Benguet, Mountain Province, Philippine Islands, the said accused pawned to Bugtong Otek a watch with its chain and fob for the sum of P50 which the accused received from said Bugtong Otek who also received and got possession of the aforementioned watch with its chain and fob; that on May 3, 1926, also in the City of Baguio, the said accused willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously made Bugtong Otek believe that he had the sum of P50 to redeem the said watch, chain and fob and he asked to hold and examine the same and if he them in good condition he would immediately give he money, but as soon as Bugtong Otek delivered him the aforementioned watch, chain and fob he pocketed them, refused to return them to said Bugtong Otek or to give him said sum of P50, said accused Restituto Fajardo having thereby deceived and defrauded Bugtong Otek in the value of said watch, chain and fob, equivalent to 250 pesetas to the damage and prejudice of the latter."cralaw virtua1aw library

The accused was sentenced by the justice of the peace court and appealed to the Court of First Instance. At the trial of the case, after a witness for the prosecution had testified, counsel for the accused raised the question of lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance to proceed with the trial of this case on appeal. The judge who tried the case, held that the crime complained of being penalized with arresto mayor, and inasmuch as this penalty carries with it suspension from public office and the rights of suffrage during the term of the sentence, in accordance with article 61 of the Penal Code, the justice of the peace had no jurisdiction to render judgment and, therefore the Court of First Instance could not try the case on appeal. Consequently, the case was dismissed and the accused re leased. The provincial fiscal appealed from said judgment.

The Attorney-General asks for the dismissal of the appeal for the reason that after a witness for the prosecuting has testified, the accused has been placed in jeopardy and the Government cannot appeal from the decision of the court. (Kepner v. U. S., 195 U. S., 100; 11 Phil., 669; People v. Borja, 43 Phil., 618.)

It must be noted that the trial judge found that he was without jurisdiction to try the case on appeal upon the grounds that the justice of the peace, according to him lacked jurisdiction to try the case originally. If the holding of the trial court is correct, the motion of the Attorney-General must be denied, otherwise it must be granted.

An examination of the complaint shows that the crime is that of estafa of P50, penalized in paragraph No. 1 of article 538, in connection with article 537 of the Penalty Code, or arresto mayor in its minimum and medium degrees, and a fine of not more than triple the amount of the damage that has been caused.

That the justice of the peace of Baguio had jurisdiction to try and render judgment in the present case is evident, in our opinion, inasmuch as the penalty imposed for the crime complained of does not exceed six months nor a fine of P200. It is so provided in section 1 of Act No. 2131 which amended section 4 of Act No. 1627 as amended by section 4 of Act No. 2041. (See English text.)

In the case of United States v. Mendoza (14 Phil., 198 the defendants were accused in the Court of First Instance of having violated article 343 of the Penal Code which punishes bankers and owners of houses where a game of luck, chance, or hazard is played, with the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of from 625 to 6,250 pesetas. The court found the accused guilty of the crime charged and sentenced them to two months of arresto mayor with hard work in the provincial jail of Ambos Camarines and to pay a fine of P125 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of in solvency. The accused appealed from this judgment and assigned as one of the grounds for the appeal, the lack of original jurisdiction of the court to try the case which was within the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace. In deciding this phase of the appeal, this court said:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The defendants cite section 108 of General Orders, No. 58 as well as section 56, paragraph 6 of Act No. 136, and also section 4 of Act No. 1627, for the purpose of sustaining their contention that the present action was the original jurisdiction of the justice of the peace. It will be noted, upon a reading of these provisions of the law relating to the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace, that he has original jurisdiction only of cases where the imprisonment is six months and a fine not exceeding $100 (P200) . It is clear, therefore, that the justice of the peace did not have jurisdiction of the present crime. The Court of First Instance had jurisdiction of the crime charged against the defendants."cralaw virtua1aw library

In United States v. Ang Suyco (17 Phil., 92), this court held that justices of the peace (with the exception of those in Manila) have no jurisdiction to try cases where the penalty for any offense included in the complaint exceeds sixths of imprisonment or a fine of P200 or both. (Sec. 4 Act No. 1627.) Therefore, if the penalty provided for any offense included in the complaint does not exceed six months of imprisonment or a fine of P200, or both, the justice of the peace has jurisdiction to try the case and render judgment provided the act complained of was committed within his territorial jurisdiction. (Sec. 2, Act 131.)

The accessories to the penalty of arresto mayor provided for in article 61 of the Penal Code do not affect the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court in the case now before us, for they do not modify nor alter the nature of the penalty provided by the law. The accessory penalties do not determine the jurisdiction of the court in which the complaint is filed. What determines the jurisdiction of the court in criminal cases is the extent of the penalty which the law imposes for the misdemeanor, crime or violation charged in the complaint. If the penalty does not exceed six months or a fine of P200, the justice of the peace court has original jurisdiction; otherwise the Court of First Instance. (U. S. v. Jimenez, 41 Phil., 1.)

It is true that in the case of United States v. Nobleza (8 Phil., 515) and United States v. Regala (28 Phil., 57) this court held that a justice of the peace has no jurisdiction to try a case of estafa committed by a justice of the peace although the penalty provided by law is only arresto mayor; but that is because article 399 of the Penal Code provides an additional penalty, ranging from temporary disqualification in its maximum degree to perpetual special disqualification, for a Government employee who, taking advantage of his office commits estafa.

Similarly, the justice of the peace has no jurisdiction in a cases of rape although article 443, paragraph 3, of the Penal Code provides the penalty only of arresto mayor and that is because article 449 provides that any person guilty of rape, seduction, or abduction shall also be sentenced to pay by way of indemnity:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. To endow the offended woman, if she be single or a widow.

"2. To recognize the offspring, unless the situation of the parents be such that the status of a recognized natural child cannot be conferred upon such offspring.

"3. In every case to support the offspring."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the case of United States v. Bernardo (19 Phil., 265), this court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"These declarations, necessarily required by statute, are not really, in a strict legal sense, accessories of the personal penalty imposed by the Penal Code upon the seducer, but are rather those which the penal law prescribes shall be made by the judge in passing final sentence in the cause, in order that it may be shown that, besides the personal penalty, the accused, in consequence of his crime, has incurred the obligations expressly stated by the said code.

"These obligations imposed upon the culprit ordinarily exceed the amount of the penalty fixed by the law as being within the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court and comprise, moreover, by virtue of the forced recognition imposed by article 135 of the Civil Code, the special determination of the civil status of the offspring which resulted from the crime, consequently, although the said crime mayor seduction is only punished by the penalty of arresto mayor, a judgment of conviction cannot be pronounced by a justice of the peace, on account of his lack of jurisdiction."cralaw virtua1aw library

In view of all of the foregoing, we hold that the justice of the peace of Baguio had jurisdiction to try the case presented to him against Restituto Fajardo, and this being so, the trial court committed an error of law in holding that it had no jurisdiction to try the case on appeal. Its judgment, however, dismissing the case and releasing the accused is unappealable for the reason that he was already in jeopardy, and therefore the motion of the Attorney-General must be granted and this appeal must, as it is hereby, dismissed, with the costs de oficio. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Street, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1926 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 25069 August 3, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PILI

    051 Phil 965

  • G.R. No. 25459 August 10, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON MABUG-AT

    051 Phil 967

  • G.R. No. 24863 August 5, 1926 - LEON RAZOTE, ET AL. v. JUAN RAZOTE, ET AL.

    049 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. 25033 August 5, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CASIMIRO PAÑGANIBAN

    049 Phil 187

  • G.R. No. 25412 August 5, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. EMILIANO TRUMATA, ET AL.

    049 Phil 192

  • G.R. No. 25679 August 5, 1926 - MAGDALENO RIEL v. BEN F. WRIGHT

    049 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. 25303 August 6, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JEREMIAS GOMEZ

    049 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. 26143 August 7, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. RESTITUTO FAJARDO

    049 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. 25168 August 9, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. PEDRO CONCHA

    049 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. 25437 August 14, 1926 - SEBASTIANA MARTINEZ, ET AL. v. CLEMENCIA GRAÑO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. 25083 August 17, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. FULGENCIO RANARIO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 220

  • G.R. No. 25336 August 17, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. SIA LIANTING, ET AL.

    049 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. 25279 August 19, 1926 - DOLORES PRADES, ET AL. v. HILARIO TECSON

    049 Phil 230

  • G.R. No. 24893 August 23, 1926 - PACIFIC COMM’L. CO., ET AL. v. PNB

    049 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. 24597 August 25, 1926 - ROSARIO GAYONDATO v. TREASURER OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS, ET AL.

    049 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. 24701 August 25, 1926 - FELIPE JUAN, ET AL. v. JUAN ORTIZ LUIS, ET AL.

    049 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 25114 August 25, 1926 - HOSPICIO GARCIA, ET AL. v. ESTEFANIA MATIAS, ET AL.

    049 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. 25558 August 25, 1926 - MODESTA QUIJANO, ET AL. v. EUGENIO GOMEZ CABALE

    049 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. 26231 August 27, 1926 - LORENZO MENDOZA v. GORGONIA PARUÑGAO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. 25462 August 28, 1926 - RIO Y OLABARRIETA, ET AL. v. YU TEC & CO., INC.

    049 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. 25185 August 30, 1926 - SIMEON MANDAC v. DOMINGO J. SAMONTE, ET AL.

    049 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. 25224 August 31, 1926 - R. M. ROBLES v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    049 Phil 324

  • G.R. No. 25247 August 12, 1926 - MARIA JUANA S. FYFE v. J. N. SIDE BOTTOM

    051 Phil 972

  • G.R. No. 24987 August 21, 1926 - MAURO PRIETO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    050 Phil 971