Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1975 > May 1975 Decisions > G.R. No. L-39863 May 29, 1975 - MANUEL GARCIA, ET AL. v. TOMAS R. LEONIDAS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-39863. May 29, 1975.]

MANUEL GARCIA, GENY GARCIA, and RODOLFO CRISMUNDO, Petitioners, v. HONORABLE TOMAS R. LEONIDAS, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAPIZ, BRANCH III, Respondent.

Librado D. Regalado, for Petitioners.

Hon. Tomas R. Leonidas in his own behalf.

SYNOPSIS


Holding that the murder charge against petitioners falls within the original exclusive jurisdiction of the military tribunal, respondent Judge motu propio desisted from continuing with the trial of the case, and ordered the transmittal of the records to the military tribunal for disposition. Hence, petitioners instituted the present special civil action, contending that respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion or exceeded his jurisdiction in abdicating jurisdiction over the case.

Certiorari granted and case remanded to lower court for trial.


SYLLABUS


1. COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE; JURISDICTION; MURDER FALLS WITH THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF SAID COURTS. — Original jurisdiction to hear and decide offenses of murder, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, is lodged with the Courts of First Instance.

2. MILITARY TRIBUNALS; JURISDICTION; VIOLATIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREES. — Under General Order No. 12, dated September 30, 1972, the authority to try and decide cases involving violations of presidential decrees has been vested upon military tribunals.

3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; RIGHTS OF AN ACCUSED; RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF ACCUSATION. — The constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation requires that "the information should state the facts and the circumstances constituting the crime charged in such a way that a person of common understanding may easily comprehend and be informed of what it is about." The facts constituting the criminal charge must be alleged in positive terms and not by way of recital. Every material fact and essential element of the offense charged must be stated with precision and certainty in the information, in simple and understandable language, in sufficient detail to enable the accused to prepare his defense.

4. MILITARY TRIBUNALS; JURISDICTION; TRANSFER OF CASES TO CIVIL COURTS. — General Order No. 49, dated October 4, 1974, transferred as much as possible to the civil courts the trial of offenses formerly lodged exclusively with the military tribunals, except those specifically enumerated in Section 1 thereof. Thus, insofar as violation of Presidential Decree No. 9 is concerned, Section 1 of General Order No. 49 appears to confine the exclusive jurisdiction of the military tribunals to "violations of the laws on firearms and explosives" including "crimes committed with the use of illegally possessed firearms and explosives."


D E C I S I O N


ANTONIO, J.:


Special Civil Action for Certiorari to set aside the Orders of respondent Judge dated September 6, October 7, and November 11, 1974 (Annexes "C", "G" and "I"), respectively, on the ground that the same were issued by him with grave abuse of his discretion or in excess of jurisdiction.

It appears that on October 10, 1973, the Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Capiz filed an Information for Murder against the three (3) accused (herein three petitioners) which reads, among others, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 28th day of April, 1973, in the municipality of Sapian, province of Capiz, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with stones and wooden club called ‘chako’, conspiring, confederating, and mutually helping one another, with evident premeditation and taking advantage of their superior strength, did then and there, with intent to kill, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, attack and assault simultaneously, one Mansueto Abayon, inflicting upon him injuries which caused his instantaneous death." (Italics supplied.)

To this Information petitioners pleaded not guilty. After prosecution witness Alfredo Barried had testified, respondent Judge issued the Order dated September 6, 1974 (Annex "G"), which states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It appearing that this case falls within the original exclusive jurisdiction of the Military Tribunal as per Presidential Decree No. 9, the court hereby desists from continuing with trial of the same, and the Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to remit the record of this case to the Military Tribunal for disposition." (Italics supplied.)

On October 2, 1974, petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration but the same was denied by respondent Judge on October 7, 1974 (Annex "G"). Their second motion for reconsideration, dated October 31, 1974 (Annex "H"), was also denied by respondent Judge in his Order of November 11, 1974 (Annex "I"), which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It appearing that the record of this case is already with the Military Tribunal and the court not having jurisdiction over the same, the second motion for reconsideration is hereby denied." (Emphasis supplied.)

In order not to delay the trial of Criminal Case No. 209 which gave rise to this petition for Certiorari, this Court considered the Comment of respondent as his answer, and the case submitted for decision, inasmuch as the question of law involved has been sufficiently discussed in the pleadings of the parties.

We grant certiorari.

The issue raised by the parties involves a question of law, as the only matter to be resolved is whether under the facts of the case, which are not disputed, the respondent court has jurisdiction to try and decide Criminal Case No. 209 for Murder, entitled "The People of the Philippines, Plaintiff, v. Manuel Garcia, Geny Garcia and Rodolfo Crismundo, alias ‘APA’, Accused." Under the Information filed by the Fiscal in the aforesaid criminal case, petitioners are charged with the crime of Murder, defined and penalized in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Original jurisdiction to hear and decide such offenses are lodged with the Courts of First Instance. 1

It is true that under General Order No. 12, dated September 30, 1972, the authority to try and decide cases involving violations of presidential decrees has been vested upon military tribunals, but petitioners are not specifically charged with the violation of a presidential decree but of an offense defined and penalized in the Revised Penal Code.

Certainly, We cannot conclude on the basis of the allegations contained in the Information that said petitioners have been specifically and clearly charged with violating Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 9.

The constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation requires that "the information should state the facts and the circumstances constituting the crime charged in such a way that a person of common understanding may easily comprehend and be informed of what it is about." 2 The facts constituting the criminal charge must be alleged in positive terms and not by way of recital. Every material fact and essential element of the offense charged must be stated with precision and certainty in the Information, in simple and understandable language, in sufficient detail to enable the accused to prepare his defense. Respondent’s construction of the Information filed by the Fiscal in the case at bar does violence to these settled rules.

Having acquired and exercised jurisdiction over the case, respondent Judge cannot, on the basis of such purported reasons, motu propio divest his court of its jurisdiction thereon, considering the clear provisions and intent of General Order No. 49, dated October 4, 1974, of transferring as much as possible to the civil courts the trial of offenses formerly lodged exclusively with the military tribunals, excepting those specifically enumerated in Section 1 thereof. Thus, insofar as violations of Presidential Decree No. 9 is concerned, Section 1 of General Order No. 49 appears to confine the exclusive jurisdiction of the military tribunals to "violations of the laws on firearms and explosives" including "crimes committed with the use of illegally possessed firearms and explosives." 3

WHEREFORE, the Orders of the Court a quo in Criminal Case No. 209, dated September 6, 1974, October 7, 1974 and November 11, 1974 are set aside, and respondent is hereby directed to proceed with the trial of said case.

Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Aquino and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Sec. 44, Rep. Act No. 296, as amended.

2. People v. Capinlac, 44 Phil 422.

3. Sec. 1, par. 6, General Order No. 49.




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






May-1975 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-29129 May 8, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO MABUYO

  • G.R. No. L-33516 May 8, 1975 - MARIANO RODRIGUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37364 May 9, 1975 - BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR. v. MILITARY COMMISSION NO. 2, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 547 January 29, 1975 - EMERENCIANA V. REYES v. FELIPE C. WONG

  • G.R. No. L-27674 May 12, 1975 - SOLEDAD T. CONSING, ET AL. v. JOSE T. JAMANDRE

  • G.R. No. L-40143 May 12, 1975 - MARIANO G. HIQUIANA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • A.M. No. 487-CAR May 13, 1975 - ROMULO G. LOPEZ v. GETULIO Z. GUEVARA

  • G.R. No. L-25048 May 13, 1975 - PHOENIX ASSURANCE COMPANY v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-34314 May 13, 1975 - SOFIA PASTOR DE MIDGELY v. PIO B. FERANDOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38096 May 14, 1975 - CONCEPCION T. UY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 77-MJ May 16, 1975 - JUAN B. CASTILLO v. TEOFILO A. BARSANA

  • A.M. No. P-124 May 16, 1975 - SOLEDAD V. GANADEN v. GREGORIO N. BOLASCO

  • G.R. No. L-39195 May 16, 1975 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39569 May 16, 1975 - CROMWEL DENILA, ET AL. v. JOSUE BELLOSILLO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 804-CJ May 19, 1975 - SATURNINO SELANOVA v. ALEJANDRO E. MENDOZA

  • A.C. No. 1081 May 19, 1975 - ABUNDIO BALDOMAN v. ROQUE LUSPO

  • G.R. No. L-20203 May 19, 1975 - LA CARLOTA SUGAR CENTRAL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26191 May 19, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO BESANA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-39993 May 19, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONSTANTE A. ANCHETA

  • A.M. No. 534-CFI May 20, 1975 - LYDIA S. NOCUM v. WILLELMO C. FORTUN

  • G.R. No. L-28649 May 21, 1975 - FRANCISCO J. NICOLAS v. REPARATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-33720-21 May 21, 1975 - PHILIPPINE BRITISH CO., INC., ET AL. v. WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 411-MJ May 22, 1975 - ERNESTO R. GONZALES v. VICENTE DE RODA OF BOGO, CEBU

  • G.R. No. L-32080 May 22, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN ALQUISAR, ET. AL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36022 May 22, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO JOVEN

  • G.R. No. L-39115 May 26, 1975 - SEGIFREDO L. ACLARACION v. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40010 May 26, 1975 - RUSSEL R. ENERIO, ET AL. v. NESTOR B. ALAMPAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25921 May 27, 1975 - VANGUARD ASSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 41-MJ May 28, 1975 - ALFREDO ARPON v. ARISTIDES B. DE LA PAZ, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. P-242 May 28, 1975 - PEDRO PINEDA v. MARIO A. HIZALAN

  • A.M. No. 429-MJ May 28, 1975 - GASPAR PARENTE v. FERNANDO DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-29128 May 28, 1975 - DOMINGA JAVIER, ET AL. v. SABAS MARFIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36560 May 28, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO ILAGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39764 May 28, 1975 - ONG TIAO SENG v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40491 May 28, 1975 - SEGUNDO AMANTE v. DELFIN VIR. SUÑGA

  • A.C. No. 203-CJ May 29, 1975 - PABLO MARCOS v. ANDRES DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 253-MJ May 29, 1975 - ALFONSO S. AUSEJO, ET AL. v. GAUDENCIO P. PAJUNAR

  • G.R. No. L-24522 May 29, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO

  • G.R. No. L-27534 May 29, 1975 - ATLAS TIMBER COMPANY, ET AL. v. FIRST WESTERN BANK AND TRUST CO.

  • G.R. No. L-31041 May 20, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO C. ALDE

  • G.R. No. L-39863 May 29, 1975 - MANUEL GARCIA, ET AL. v. TOMAS R. LEONIDAS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 111-MJ May 30, 1975 - FELIX CARREON v. BRUNO R. FLORES

  • A.M. No. 810-CJ May 30, 1975 - JOSE KUAN SING v. ROSENDO BALTAZAR

  • A.M. No. 852-MJ May 30, 1975 - FELISBERTO ALEGRE v. RHODIE A. NIDEA

  • A.C. No. 905 May 30, 1975 - HERMOGENES G. MENDOZA v. ARSENIO R. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-25779 May 30, 1975 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. VALDERRAMA LUMBER MANUFACTURERS CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-26507 May 30, 1975 - LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWANG MAKABAYAN v. WALFRIDO DELOS ANGELES

  • G.R. No. L-37378 May 30, 1975 - HIDELIZA C. CAMOMOT, ET AL. v. ROMULO SENINING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38502 May 30, 1975 - PIO B. FERANDOS v. JUAN Y. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39741 May 30, 1975 - NATION MULTI SERVICE LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. MARIANO V. AGCAOILI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40187 May 30, 1975 - GENERAL TEXTILES, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.