Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1950 > December 1950 Decisions > G.R. No. L-3612 December 29, 1950 - AVELINO NATIVIDAD, ET AL. v. RICARDO C. ROBLES

087 Phil 834:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-3612. December 29, 1950.]

AVELINO NATIVIDAD, PEDRO GABRIEL, and MIGUEL EVANGELISTA, Petitioners, v. RICARDO C. ROBLES, Justice of the Peace Court of Malabon, Rizal, Respondent.

Ross, Selph, Carrascoso & Janda, for Petitioners.

Assistant Provincial Fiscal Irineo V. Bernardo, for Respondent.

SYLLABUS


1. COURTS; CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURTS; POWER TO IMPOSE PENALTIES HIGHER THAN IMPRISONMENT OF SIX MONTHS OR FINE OF P200. — Formerly the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace courts in criminal cases was limited to offenses penalized with imprisonment of not more than six months or a fine of not more than p200. Under section 87 (c) of Republic Act No. 296, the criminal jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court is enlarged and made to extend to specific offenses independently of the penalties provided by law therefor.

2. COURTS; CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE; SECTIONS 44 (f) AND 87 (c) OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 296 HARMONIZED. — Section 44 (f) of Republic Act No. 296 which confers upon the court of first instance original jurisdiction in "all criminal cases in which the penalty provided by law is imprisonment for more than six months or a fine of more than P200" should be construed together with section 87 (c) of the same Act. Accordingly, the courts of first instance and justice of the peace courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the specific offenses mentions in section 87 (c) of Republic Act No. 296 when the penalty to be imposed is imprisonment for more than six months or a fine of more than P200.

3. JUDICIARY ACT. SECTION 87 (C), NO. 7; TRESPASS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY; MEANING OF; STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION. — One of the specific offenses over which the justice of the peace courts now have jurisdiction is "trespass on Government or private property." There can be no doubt that "private property" as used in this provision includes all property, personal or real, and therefore, it includes dwelling. "Trespass on private property" is broad enough to include the offense of qualified trespass to dwelling. The jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of Manila over this defense was first vested by Act No. 267 of the Philippine Commission which undoubtedly employed the words "trespass on private property" in the sense in which they were understood in the United States of America. And under the American Criminal Law, trespass on private property includes trespass to dwelling. (52 Am. Jur., p. 848.)

4. id.; jurisdiction of the justice of the peace courts; trespass on private property DOES NOT REFER SOLELY TO TRESPASS TO UNINHABITED "CLOSED PREMISES" OR "FENCED ESTATE" AS DEFINED IN ARTICLE 281 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE. — The purpose of the new Judiciary Act is to enlarge the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace, who are all required by the Constitution to be lawyers. If the words "trespass on private property" should be construed as having reference only to trespass to uninhabited "closed premises" or "fenced state" as defined in article 281 of the Revised Penal Code and penalized therein with arresto mayor or fine not exceeding P200, then such offense would not have been included in the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace courts for it was already under their jurisdiction under the old law. And furthermore the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of Manila in such case could not be concurrent with that of the Court of First Instance of Manila which, because of the nature of the penalty provided by law, has no original jurisdiction over said offense.

5. ID.; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; TRESPASS TO DWELLING WITH VIOLENCE; ORIGINAL CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT AND COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE; CASE AT BAR. — Our conclusion is that the offense of trespass to dwelling with violence as charged against the petitioners, fall within the original jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Court of Malabon, concurrent with that of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, and in the instant case the court which first exercised jurisdiction was the Justice of the Peace Court of Malabon, it having already acted on the case though erroneously in the form of preliminary investigation.


D E C I S I O N


MORAN, C.J. :


This is a petition for prohibition against the Justice of the Peace court of Malabon. Petitioners, on August 18, 1949, were charged in the Justice of the Peace Court of Malabon, Rizal, with qualified trespass to dwelling. After conducting a preliminary investigation, said court elevated the case to the Court of First Instance for trial on the merits. The Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, instead of filing an information, asked the Court of First Instance of Rizal to return the case to the Justice of the Peace court for trial on the merits. The case was set for trial by the latter court, hence the instant petition to prevent such trial upon the ground that it is not the justice of the peace court but the Court of First Instance which has original jurisdiction to try the case.

Formerly the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace courts in criminal cases was limited to offenses penalized with imprisonment of not more than six months or a fine of not more than P200. But later such jurisdiction was enlarged and made to extend to specific offenses independently of the penalties provided by law therefor. Thus, Republic Act No. 296, sec. 87 (c), provides that justice of the peace courts shall have original jurisdiction over:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

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

"(1) Gambling and management or operation 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 liquor;

"(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

This new jurisdiction of justice of the peace courts is exactly the same jurisdiction vested long ago in the Municipal Court of the City of Manila, (section 2468 of the Administrative Code as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 361) and is also the same jurisdiction vested later in the municipal courts of other chartered cities such as Cebu, Iloilo, Baguio, San Pablo and Cavite. In other words, justice of the peace courts are empowered to impose penalties higher than "imprisonment of six months or of fine P200," where the offense charged is one of those specified in the above quoted provision of the Judiciary Act.

Upon the other hand, section 44 (f) of the same Republic Act No. 296, confers upon the Court of First Instance original jurisdiction "in all criminal cases in which the penalty provided by law is imprisonment for more than six (6) months or a fine of more than P200." This provision should be construed together with section 87 (c) above quoted, and such construction should be adopted which harmonizes the two provisions, giving equal effectivity to both of them. Accordingly, the jurisdiction of the two courts over the specific offenses above mentioned must be construed as concurrent when the penalty to be imposed is more than six months imprisonment or a fine of more than P200. In the City of Manila the concurrent jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance and the municipal court in such cases is expressly provided by law. (Sec. 2468. Adm. Code.) .

One of the specific offenses over which justice of the peace courts have now jurisdiction is "trespass on Government or private property." And the question is whether "trespass on private property" includes qualified trespass to dwelling, the offense charged against petitioners. There can be no doubt that "private property" includes all property, personal or real, and therefore, it includes dwelling. The jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of Manila over this offense was first vested by Act No. 267 of the Philippine Commission who undoubtedly employed the words "trespass on private property" in the sense in which they were understood in the United States of America. And under the American Criminal Law, trespass on private property includes trespass to dwelling. (52 Am. Jur., p. 848.) .

The purpose of the new Judiciary Act is to enlarge the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace, who are all required by the Constitution to be lawyers. If the words "trespass on private property" should be construed as having reference only to trespass to uninhabited "closed premises’" or "fenced estate" as defined in article 281 of the Revised Penal Code and penalized therein with arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding P200, then such offense would not have been included in the new jurisdiction of the justice of the peace courts, for it was already under their jurisdiction under the old law. And furthermore the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of Manila in such case could not be concurrent with that of the Court of First Instance of Manila which, because of the nature of the penalty provided by law, has no original jurisdiction over said offense.

Moreover, qualified trespass to dwelling is not as serious as some of the other offenses to which the criminal jurisdiction of the justice of the peace courts has been extended by the Judiciary Act. Qualified theft, for instance, when the value of the thing stolen is less than P200, is penalized by law with imprisonment ranging from prision mayor to reclusion temporal, whereas trespass to dwelling with violence or intimidation is punishable only with prison correccional in its medium and maximum periods plus fine. And this is another reason for concluding that, under the wording of the law, the criminal jurisdiction of the justice of the peace courts which includes qualified theft, includes also qualified trespass to dwelling.

Our conclusion is that the offense of trespass to dwelling with violence as charged against the petitioners, falls within the original jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court of Malabon, concurrent with that of the Court of which first exercised jurisdiction was the Justice of the Peace court of Malabon, which already acted on the case though erroneously in the form of preliminary investigation. The Court of First Instance to which the case was elevated did nothing but return the same to the court of origin.

From all the foregoing, petition is denied, with costs against petitioners.

Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Reyes, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.

Moran, C.J., Mr. Justice Paras and Mr. Justice Feria agree with the decision.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





December-1950 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-3576 December 5, 1950 - ANGELES CASON VDA. DE CARRETERO v. GREGORIO TARCA, ET AL.

    087 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. L-2396 December 1, 1950 - IN RE: NATIVIDAD I. VDA. DE ROXAS v. MARIA ROXAS, ET AL.

    087 Phil 692

  • G.R. No. L-4327 December 15, 1950 - PRICE STABILIZATION CORPORATION, ET AL. v. OSCAR CASTELO

    087 Phil 714

  • G.R. No. L-1975 December 21, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO DE LOS SANTOS

    087 Phil 721

  • G.R. No. L-2066 December 21, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MODESTO GEBUNE

    087 Phil 727

  • G.R. Nos. L-2733-40 December 21, 1950 - JOSE PIO BARRETO, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    087 Phil 731

  • G.R. No. L-2832 December 21, 1950 - JOSE MUÑOZ v. ROSENDO R. LLAMAS, ET AL.

    087 Phil 737

  • G.R. No. L-2928 December 21, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE GLORE

    087 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 3614 December 21, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. RUFINO REDOÑA

    087 Phil 743

  • G.R. Nos. L-4047-49 December 21, 1950 - ELPIDIO JAVELLANA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    087 Phil 746

  • G.R. No. L-2898 December 23, 1950 - LUCILA ORNEDO v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS, ET AL.

    087 Phil 752

  • G.R. No. L-3408 December 23, 1950 - JOSE SORIANO, ET AL. v. DALMACIO LATOÑO, ET AL.

    087 Phil 757

  • G.R. No. L-3658 December 23, 1950 - EULOGIO ABOGAA v. GO SAM, ET AL.

    087 Phil 761

  • G.R. No. L-2871 December 26, 1950 - ENRIQUE BAUTISTA v. MAXIMO BAKOD

    087 Phil 763

  • G.R. No. L-3737 December 27, 1950 - MELCHOR DAMASCO v. CIRIACO MONTEMAYOR

    087 Phil 766

  • G.R. No. L-3838 December 27, 1950 - RITO V. CRUZ, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO E. JOSE

    087 Phil 770

  • G.R. No. L-3048 December 28, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MORO MAMACOL

    087 Phil 772

  • G.R. No. L-1570 December 29, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASIANO CARDEÑAS

    087 Phil 776

  • G.R. No. L-2176 December 29, 1950 - CONSOLACION ARBOSO v. DOROTEO ANDRADE

    087 Phil 782

  • G.R. No. L-2277 December 29, 1950 - MONICO CONCEPCION v. PACIENCIA STA. ANA

    087 Phil 787

  • G.R. No. L-2315 December 29, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOROTEO ABATAYO

    087 Phil 794

  • G.R. No. L-2728 December 29, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JORGE BARREDO

    087 Phil 800

  • G.R. No. L-2925 December 29, 1950 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. RICARDO RIZAL, ET AL.

    087 Phil 806

  • G.R. No. L-3297 December 29, 1950 - LEE TAY & LEE CHAY, INC. v. FLORENCIO CHOCO

    087 Phil 814

  • G.R. No. L-3353 December 29, 1950 - IN RE: BENJAMIN BAUTISTA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    087 Phil 818

  • G.R. No. L-3385 December 29, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. GRACIANO ESPIRITU

    087 Phil 820

  • G.R. No. L-3460 December 29, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO F. MORPUS

    087 Phil 824

  • G.R. No. L-3545 December 29, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE VILLARUEL

    087 Phil 826

  • G.R. No. L-3606 December 29, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE P. MISOLA

    087 Phil 830

  • G.R. No. L-3612 December 29, 1950 - AVELINO NATIVIDAD, ET AL. v. RICARDO C. ROBLES

    087 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-3911 December 29, 1950 - REMIGIO MARASIGAN v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO, ET AL.

    087 Phil 839

  • G.R. No. L-3936 December 29, 1950 - REPUBLICA DE FILIPINAS v. DEMETRIO ENCARNACION

    087 Phil 843