Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1952 > October 1952 Decisions > G.R. No. L-5221 October 27, 1952 - BENITO R. FERRER v. POTENCIANO PECSON, ET AL.

092 Phil 172:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-5221. October 27, 1952.]

BENITO FERRER Y RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. POTENCIANO PECSON, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

Maximo Calalang for Petitioner.

Assistant Fiscal Pedro Ma. Sison, Jr., for Respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. IMPRUDENCE IN DRIVING MOTOR VEHICLES; WHAT LAW GOVERNS IT WHERE DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES RESULT. — An act of negligence or reckless or unreasonably fast driving resulting in death or serious physical injuries to any person, should be prosecuted under section 67 of the Revised Motor Vehicle Law and not under the Revised Penal Code. (Eustaquio v. Liwag, 86 Phil., 540 People v. Moreno, 60 Phil., 712.) On March 1, 1949, when the complaint in this case was filed in the Municipal Court of Manila, the law penalizing the act imputed to the accused was the Revised Motor Vehicle Law (Act No. 3932), section 67 of which provides that if as a result of negligence or reckless or unreasonably fast driving any accident occurs resulting in death or serious bodily injury to any person, the one responsible upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than 15 days nor more than 6 years in the discretion of the court.

2. ID.; WHAT COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER SUCH VIOLATIONS. — The criminal jurisdiction of a justice of the peace or a municipal court as defined in the Judiciary Act of 1948 approved in June, 1948, is confined to offenses in which the penalty is not more than 6 months. Acts of negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle which cause a collision and result in physical injuries can hardly be regarded as assaults without intent to kill, such as to give the Municipal Court of Manila jurisdiction to try such offenses. If the justice of the peace or municipal court had no jurisdiction of a case brought before it, the Court of First Instance to which the said case is appealed had likewise no appellate jurisdiction over same.

3. ID,; STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; WHEN BENEFIT OF RETROACTIVITY CANNOT BE APPRECIATED IN FAVOR OF ACCUSED. — Although the provisions of the Penal Code and section 16 of Republic Act 587, which went into effect January 1, 1951, are more favorable to the accused as regards the penalty than the Revised Motor Vehicle Law, yet if he, far from invoking the benefits of Republic Act 587, disregards it and instead invokes the Revised Motor Vehicle Law which was in force at the time the acts imputed to him were committed, at least for that reason alone the question of retroactivity cannot be considered.


D E C I S I O N


MONTEMAYOR, J.:


On March 1, 1949, petitioner Benito Ferrer y Rodriguez was accused before the Municipal Court of Manila of serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence under criminal case No. 10050 of said court. The complaint alleged that on February 2, 1949, in the City of Manila, Petitioner, driver of a jeepney, operated it along Dapitan Street in a careless, reckless and imprudent manner as a result of which said jeepney driven by him sidewiped another jeepney thereby causing a collision, inflicting on a passenger named Avelino Tiu physical injuries consisting of fracture compound, communited, middle third, humerus left; fracture compound, communited, neck, radius, left, fracture, simple, middle third, radius, ulna left, which injuries have required and will require medical attendance for a period of from six (6) to eight (8) months and have prevented and will prevent the said offended party from engaging in his customary labor during the same period of time. After trial the Municipal Court of Manila found him guilty and sentenced him to three (3) months of arresto mayor. Defendant appealed the case to the Court of First Instance of Manila.

On November 27, 1950, petitioner through counsel filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground that the Municipal Court of Manila had no jurisdiction over the offense and, consequently, the court of first instance had no appellate jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss was denied by Judge Potenciano Pecson presiding over the court of first instance, but upon motion for reconsideration, the same judge in his order of June 6, 1951 (Annex D), granted the motion for reconsideration and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. On a motion for reconsideration filed by the fiscal, Judge Pecson in his order dated August 29, 1951 (Annex E), revoked his order of June 6, 1951 (Annex D) and declared his first order of December 14, 1950, denying the motion to dismiss as in force. Counsel for defendant Ferrer asked for a reconsideration of this order and upon denial of his motion by order of the respondent judge dated October 31, 1951 (Annex I), has filed the present petition for certiorari to revoke the order of August 29, 1951 (Annex E), and to reinstate the order of June 6, 1951 (Annex D).

After a careful study of this case, we are inclined to agree with the petitioner. The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is to be determined by the law at the time of the institution of the action (People v. Pegarum, 58 Phil., 715). At the time that the complaint in this case was filed on March 1, 1949, in the Municipal Court of Manila, the law penalizing the act imputed to the petitioner was the Revised Motor Vehicle Law (Act No. 3932), section 67 of which provides that if as a result of negligence or reckless or unreasonably fast driving any accident occurs resulting in death or serious bodily injury to any person, the one responsible upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than fifteen (15) days nor more than six (6) years in the discretion of the court.

According to a series of cases decided by this court, among them that of Eustaquio v. Liwag (86 Phil., 540) and People v. Moreno (60 Phil., 712), an act of negligence or reckless or unreasonably fast driving resulting in death or serious physical injuries to any person, should be prosecuted under section 67 of the Revised Motor Vehicle Law and not under the Revised Penal Code.

The criminal jurisdiction of a justice of the peace or a municipal court as defined in the Judiciary Act of 1948 approved in June, 1948, is confined to offenses in which the penalty is not more than six (6) months. From this it is clear that the Municipal Court of Manila had no jurisdiction over this case where a maximum penalty of six (6) years may be imposed; and if it had no original jurisdiction, the court of first instance presided over by Judge Pecson had likewise no appellate jurisdiction.

It is true that section 67 of the Revised Motor Vehicle Law (Act No. 3932) was amended by section 16 of Republic Act No. 587 which went into effect on January 1, 1951, in the sense that acts of negligence or reckless or unreasonably fast driving resulting in death or serious bodily injury upon any person shall be prosecuted and punished under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code. But this Act may not be given retroactive effect so as to confer on the municipal court jurisdiction which it did not have when it tried and decided the case against petitioner. It may be true that the provisions of the Penal Code are more favorable to the petitioner in this case as regards the penalty, but when the very accused (herein petitioner) far from invoking the benefits of said Republic Act No. 587, disregards it and instead, invokes the Revised Motor Vehicle Law (Act No. 3932) which was in force at the time that the acts imputed to him were committed, at least for that reason alone the question of retroactivity can not and will not be considered.

Respondents contend that under the Judiciary Act of 1948 as well as the Charter of the City of Manila, the Municipal Court of Manila is given jurisdiction to try criminal cases of assaults where the intent to kill is not alleged or is not evident from the evidence, regardless of the penalty attached to the crime. But it is obvious that acts of negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle which cause a collision and result in physical injuries can hardly be regarded as assaults without the intent to kill.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for certiorari is hereby granted and the order of respondent judge of June 6, 1951 (Annex D) dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction is hereby reinstated. No costs.

Paras C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, 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






October-1952 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-4364 October 7, 1952 - FELIPE B. PAGKANLUÑGAN v. HON. MANUEL DE LA FUENTE, ET AL.

    092 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-3645 October 8, 1952 - J. ANTONIO ARANETA, ET AL. v. RURAL PROGRESS ADM.

    092 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-4725 October 15, 1952 - IN RE: YU LO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 105

  • G.R. No. L-3784 October 17, 1952 - ERNEST BERG v. MAGDALENA ESTATE, INC.

    092 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. L-4665 October 17, 1952 - ROBUSTIANO CARAGAO, ET AL. v. HON. CIRILO C. MACEREN, ET AL.

    092 Phil 121

  • G.R. No. L-4549 October 22, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO CAPISTRANO

    092 Phil 125

  • Adm. Case No. 126 October 24, 1952 - IN RE: ATTY. TRANQUILINO ROVERO

    092 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. L-4397 October 24, 1952 - IN RE: DELFIN LIMTAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. L-4614 October 24, 1952 - JUAN DELIVA v. HON. JOSE T. SURTIDA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. L-5138 October 24, 1952 - GERONIMO P. VIBAL v. ARSENIO C. ROLDAN, ET AL.

    092 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. L-5424 October 24, 1952 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. QUERUBE C. MAKALINTAL, ET AL.

    092 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-3751 October 25, 1952 - VISAYAN DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. MARIANO R. FLORES, ET AL.

    092 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. L-4032 October 25, 1952 - IN RE: CHUA PIENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-4603 October 25, 1952 - IN RE: MANUEL SINGSON v. EMILIA FLORENTINO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 161

  • G.R. No. L-4992 October 27, 1952 - ALFREDO MIRANDA v. DAVID GUANZON, ET AL.

    092 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. L-5221 October 27, 1952 - BENITO R. FERRER v. POTENCIANO PECSON, ET AL.

    092 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. L-3970 October 29, 1952 - GURBAX SINGH PABLA & CO., ET AL. v. HERMOGENES REYES, ET AL.

    092 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. L-4441 October 29, 1952 - ROSA BRACAMONTE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    092 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. L-4625 October 29, 1952 - EUGENIO EVANGELISTA, ET AL. v. BRIGIDA SORIANO

    092 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-4835 October 29, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES GARCIA

    092 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-5188 October 29, 1952 - ALICIA S. GONZALES v. ASIA LIFE INSURANCE CO.

    092 Phil 197

  • G.R. No. L-5187 October 29, 1952 - MORA O. SANNA v. MORA O. AJIRIA

    092 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-5298 October 29, 1952 - PNB v. PEDRO C. RELATIVO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. L-5628 October 29, 1952 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. EL TRIBUNAL INDUSTRIAL

    092 Phil 208

  • C.A. No. 6119-R October 29, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO ISAAC

    092 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. L-4466 October 30, 1952 - ELENA AMEDO v. RIO Y OLABARRIETA, INC.

    092 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. L-4630 October 30, 1952 - NICOMEDES SULLER v. PRIMITIVO S. PEREZ

    092 Phil 216