ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
May-1950 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1597 May 5, 1950 - SANTIAGO SYJUCO, INC. v. PNB, ET AL

    086 Phil 320

  • G.R. No. L-2029 May 6, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN MONES

    086 Phil 331

  • G.R. No. L-2628 May 6, 1950 - ROQUE PARADO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    086 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. L-2124 May 10, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JOSE O. DEMETRIO, ET AL

    086 Phil 344

  • G.R. No. L-2860 May 11, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO PALMON

    086 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. L-2640 May 12, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. LEON O. DE LOS REYES

    086 Phil 355

  • G.R. No. L-2400 May 18, 1950 - MARIA MACAPINLAC, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

    086 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-2487 May 18, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICO ELIZAGA, ET AL

    086 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. L-1721 May 19, 1950 - JUAN D. EVANGELISTA ET AL. v. RAFAEL SANTOS

    086 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. L-2188 May 19, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO GUILLERMO, ET AL.

    086 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. L-2231 May 19, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. INOCENCIO BERNARDO

    086 Phil 400

  • G.R. Nos. L-2731-32 May 19, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN VICTORIANO, ET AL.

    086 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. L-2777 May 19, 1950 - FERNANDO HERNANDEZ, ET v. EMILIO PEÑA, ET AL

    086 Phil 411

  • G.R. No. L-2798 May 19, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GABRIEL GASPAR

    086 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-2823 May 19, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CLEMENTE MACUL Y OTROS

    086 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. L-2835 May 19, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. GRACIANO TENORIO Y BRUNO TENORIO

    086 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-3066 May 22, 1950 - RADIOWEALTH, INC. v. MANUEL AGREGADO, ET AL

    086 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. L-3103 May 22, 1950 - YU PHI KHIM, ET AL v. RAFAEL AMPARO, ET AL

    086 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. L-3595 May 22, 1950 - ANG LAM v. POTENCIANO ROSILLOSA, ET AL

    086 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. L-2792 May 23, 1950 - ROMEO JACA v. MANUEL BLANCO

    086 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. L-3049 May 24, 1950 - JULIANA VIVO v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA

    086 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. L-2181 May 25, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    086 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-3443 May 26, 1950 - FELIPE LUNA v. GAVINO S. ABAYA, ET AL

    086 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. L-1601 May 29, 1950 - CENON ALBEA v. CARLOS INQUIMBOY, ET AL

    086 Phil 477

  • G.R. No. L-2365 May 29, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO SAN LUIS, ET AL

    086 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. L-3071 May 29, 1950 - SALVACION LOPEZ v. JOSE TEODORO, ET AL

    086 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. L-3271 May 29, 1950 - QUIRINO RICAFRENTE, ET AL v. GUILLERMO CABRERA, ET AL

    086 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. L-3451 May 29, 1950 - RODOLFO GERARDO v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOCOS NORTE

    086 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-2660 May 30, 1950 - LUZON MARINE DEPARTMENT UNION v. ARSENIO C. ROLDAN, ET AL

    086 Phil 507

  • G.R. No. L-2744 May 30, 1950 - GAUDENCIO D. DEMAISIP, ET AL v. QUERUBE C. MAKALINTAL, ET AL

    086 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. L-2800 May 30, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOPISTA CANJA

    086 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-3211 May 30, 1950 - A. SORIANO Y CIA. v. GONZALO M. JOSE, ET AL

    086 Phil 523

  • G.R. No. L-2408 May 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO RIPARIP ET AL.

    086 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. L-2816 May 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE YTURRIAGA

    086 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. L-3343 May 31, 1950 - REGINO EUSTAQUIO v. JUAN R. LIWAG, ET AL

    086 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. L-3541 May 31, 1950 - TOMAS T. FABELLA v. TIBURCIO TANCINCO ETC.

    086 Phil 543

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-2860   May 11, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO PALMON<br /><br />086 Phil 350

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-2860. May 11, 1950.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FRANCISCO PALMON, Defendant-Appellee.

    First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzon and Solicitor Pacifico P. de Castro for Appellant.

    SYLLABUS


    1. COURTS; CONCURRENT JURISDICTION; JUSTICE OF THE PEACE AND MUNICIPAL COURTS WITH COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE; CRIMES ENUMERATED IN SECTION 87 (C), REPUBLIC ACT NO. 296. — The jurisdiction given to justices of the peace and judges of municipal courts over all criminal cases enumerated in paragraph (c) of section 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 is not exclusive but concurrent with the Courts of First Instance.


    D E C I S I O N


    OZAETA, J.:


    Francisco Palmon was charged before the Court of First Instance of Capiz with serious physical injuries committed on November 19, 1948, in the municipality of Batan, Capiz, by firing a carbine at one Pedro Cipriano, thereby hitting and wounding Eliseo Flogio on the left thigh, which had to be amputated to save his life.

    Before the arraignment of the accused His Honor Judge Hipolito Alo motu proprio dismissed the case on the ground that, under section 87 of Republic Act No. 296, the crime charged falls under the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace. From that order the provincial fiscal appealed.

    The crime with which the accused is charged is defined and penalized by article 263 of the Revised Penal Code, paragraph 2, which reads as follows:red:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Any person who shall wound, beat, or assault another, shall be guilty of the crime of serious physical injuries and shall suffer:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    "2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the person injured shall have lost the use of speech or the power to hear or to smell, or a leg, or shall have lost the use of any such member, or shall have become incapacitated for the work in which he was theretofore habitually engaged."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods ranges from 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 6 years.

    Section 44 of Republic Act No. 296 provides that the Courts of First Instance shall have original jurisdiction:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "(f) In all criminal cases in which the penalty provided by law is imprisonment for more than six months, or a fine of more than two hundred pesos."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Under the above-quoted provisions of the Revised Penal Code and of the Judiciary Act of 1948, there can be no question that the Court of First Instance has original jurisdiction to try and decide the case at bar. The question arises from the provisions of section 87 of the same Judiciary Act which reads in part as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SEC. 87. Original jurisdiction to try criminal cases. — Justices of the peace and judges of municipal courts of chartered cities shall have original jurisdiction over:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "(a) All violations of municipal or city ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction;

    "(b) All offenses in which the penalty provided by law is imprisonment for not more than six months, or a fine of not more than two hundred pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment;

    "(c) All criminal cases arising under the laws relating to:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "(1) Gambling and management of lotteries;

    "(2) Assaults where the intent to kill is not charged or evident upon the trial;

    "(3) Larceny, embezzlement and estafa where the amount of money or property stolen, embezzled, or otherwise involved, does not exceed the sum or value of two hundred pesos;

    "(4) Sale of intoxicating liquors;

    "(5) Falsely impersonating an officer;

    "(6) Malicious mischief;

    "(7) Trespass on Government or private property; and

    "(8) Threatening to take human life."cralaw virtua1aw library

    We note that some of the cases enumerated under paragraph (c) of the above-quoted section 87 also fall under the original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. For instance, some cases of gambling, operation of lotteries, embezzlement and estafa are punished with imprisonment of more than six months or a fine of more than two hundred pesos. (See article 195, paragraph 2 [referring to gambling and betting], article 217, paragraph 1 [referring to malversation or embezzlement of public funds or property], and article 315, paragraph 4 (b) [estafa through falsification], of the Revised Penal Code.) .

    Likewise an assault without intent to kill may constitute a crime punishable with imprisonment of more than six months if it results in serious physical injuries, as in the present case. The provincial fiscal contended in the court below that the assault mentioned in section 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 comprehends only an aggression which produces no physical injury and which necessarily falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the justice of the peace. That view was rejected by the trial judge and is not shared by the Solicitor General in this appeal, and we think they are right. An assault causing no physical injury is penalized in paragraph 3 of article 266 of the Revised Penal Code with arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding fifty pesos. That would necessarily fall under the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace in accordance with paragraph (b) of article 87. There would, therefore, be no need for sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph (c) if the assault mentioned therein meant only an aggression which produces no physical injury.

    The Solicitor General agrees with the trial judge that the crime in question resulted from an assault mentioned in section 87. But, whereas the trial judge holds that such a crime falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the justice of the peace, the Solicitor General contends that the Court of First Instance and the justice of the peace court have concurrent original jurisdiction over the offense.

    We uphold the contention of the Solicitor General for the following reasons:.

    1. Section 44 (f) of the Judiciary Act of 1948 expressly confers original jurisdiction on the Courts of First Instance over all criminal cases, like the present, in which the penalty provided by law is imprisonment for more than six months, or a fine of more than two hundred pesos. And section 87 of the same Act also confers original jurisdiction on justices of the peace and judges of municipal courts of chartered cities over all criminal cases arising under the laws relating to assaults where the intent to kill is not charged or evident upon the trial. The serious physical injuries charged in the information resulted from such assault. There is no inconsistency in giving two courts concurrent jurisdiction over the same offense. To construe section 87 (c) as conferring exclusive original jurisdiction on justices of the peace and judges of municipal courts over all criminal cases therein enumerated, would be to nullify pro tanto section 44 (f) of the same Act. A statute must be so construed as to harmonize and give effect to all its provisions whenever possible.

    2. Formerly judges of municipal courts of chartered cities had concurrent jurisdiction with the Courts of First Instance over all criminal cases mentioned in section 87 (c), while justices of the peace did not. Sections 86 and 87 of Republic Act No. 296 put justices of the peace and judges of municipal courts on the same level by giving them the same jurisdiction in both criminal and civil cases. Section 87 (c) of Republic Act No. 296 was adopted from the provisions of the Revised Administrative Code on chartered cities with regard to the jurisdiction of municipal courts. Both sections 2468 (Manila) and 2562-A (Baguio) of the Revised Administrative Code provide that the municipal court "shall also have concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance over all criminal cases arising under the laws relating to gambling and management of lotteries, to assaults where the intent to kill is not charged or evident upon the trial, to larceny, embezzlement and estafa where the amount of money or property stolen, embezzled or otherwise involved does not exceed the sum or value of two hundred pesos, to the sale of intoxicating liquors, to falsely impersonating an officer, to malicious mischief, to trespass on Government or private property and to threatening to take human life.."

    From the foregoing considerations, it seems clear that the jurisdiction given to justices of the peace and judges of municipal courts over all criminal cases enumerated in paragraph (c) of section 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 is not exclusive but concurrent with the Courts of First Instance.

    The trial court therefore erred in dismissing this case for lack of jurisdiction.

    The order of dismissal is reversed and the case is remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings, without any finding as to costs.

    Moran, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    Order reversed and case remanded for further proceedings.

    G.R. No. L-2860   May 11, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO PALMON<br /><br />086 Phil 350


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED