Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > July 1967 Decisions > G.R. No. L-27671 & L-27684-86 July 27, 1967 - PABLO DE GUZMAN v. COURT OF APPEALS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-27671 & L-27684-86. July 27, 1967.]

PABLO DE GUZMAN, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.

Jose Santos and Laurel Law Offices, for Petitioners.

No appearance for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; JURISDICTION; FAILURE BY AN ACCUSED TO OBJECT TO APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, EFFECT THEREOF. — Where a justice of the peace court sentenced an accused in each of five separate cases of theft and, on appeal, the Court of First Instance, after trial de novo affirmed the five sentences, but the Court of Appeals found the accused guilty not of five offenses but only one crime of theft, which, because of the value of the property stolen, was originally cognizable by the Court of First Instance, not by the inferior court, the Court of Appeals had appellate jurisdiction to sentence the accused, if the latter failed to seasonably object to the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, as he is deemed to have submitted himself to the original jurisdiction of the latter court.


D E C I S I O N


SANCHEZ, J.:


Petitioner faced five (5) charges of theft of five (5) carabaos each priced, according to the criminal complaints, at P200.00. The Justice of the Peace Court (now Municipal Court) of Angat, Bulacan, found him guilty, and sentenced him in each of the five cases.

The Court of First Instance of Bulacan on appeal 1 and after joint trial de novo, similarly found him guilty, and sentenced him in each of the five cases to an indeterminate penalty ranging from two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, and to pay the costs. 2

He went to the Court of Appeals. 3 Again, he was found guilty. But with this difference: The Court of Appeals found that the five carabaos—with a total value of P930.00 (by the evidence, one of which is only worth P130.00)—were missed "while grazing fully in a common pasture" ; and that said carabaos "were all loaded at Binagbag and presumably previously gathered at that point." The Court of Appeals correctly concluded that there was "one criminal act", and that petitioner "cannot be held guilty of separate offenses." The Court of Appeals accordingly pronounced petitioner liable for "only one crime of theft of large cattle," and sentenced him to an indeterminate prison term ranging "from four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correctional as minimum, to nine (9) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioner moved to reconsider the judgment. He claims lack of original jurisdiction in the justice of the peace court and lack of jurisdiction in the two appellate courts. The Court of Appeals rejected the reconsideration sought.

Seasonably, petitioner came to this Court on appeal by certiorari. Taking the cue from the Court of Appeals, he avers that solely one crime was committed, and that the total value of the five carabaos, the subject thereof, is P930.00. His syllogism: The Justice of the Peace Court of Angat, Bulacan, did not have original jurisdiction to try the case because of the value of property stolen: therefore, the Court of First Instance did not have appellate jurisdiction; and, accordingly, the Court of Appeals was bereft of power to sentence him.

Cast in legal setting, the problem is this: Is the Court of Appeals’ decision null and void for want of jurisdiction?

Unquestionably, the justice of the Peace Court in Angat — which originally tried and sentenced petitioner — did not have jurisdiction. We are not now dealing with the five separate cases of theft. For, as the Court of Appeals found, there was only one crime of theft — which, even at inception, should have been charged petitioner — and the aggregate value of the five stolen carabaos is P930.00. And, the statutory ceiling for justice of the peace courts, for jurisdictional purposes, is gauged in terms of the worth of property stolen, which "does not exceed the sum or value of two hundred pesos." 4

But, he went to the Court of First Instance. There, he pleaded not guilty, submitted to trial de novo, heard the judgment condemning him in each of the five separate cases. All along, he never raised his voice in protest. He never breathed a word in challenge of that court’s appellate jurisdiction.

Where, as in the case before us, defendant is tried by an inferior court and sentenced therein for a crime beyond that court’s jurisdictional boundaries, two courses of action are open to him in the court of first instance, on appeal. First. He may assail the appellate jurisdiction of the court and seek to nullify the proceedings in, and judgment of, the inferior court. Such jurisdictional objection he must assert. And this, for the potent reason that should the court of first instance find the same to be well-founded, then the only jurisdiction acquired by the latter court is to dismiss the case. Second, Defendant has the other choice of voluntarily, submitting himself to the court of first instance in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. He is deemed to have thus submitted himself if he does not object to the appellate jurisdiction of the court. In which case, no error of jurisdictional dimensions may be tagged to this court. This is a rule of ancient respectability 5 and has earned judicial acceptance ever since. 6

The same rule obtains in civil cases. The statute on this point 7 finds copious jurisprudential support. 8

Measured by the legal yardstick just delineated, here is the situation before us: If we take the five cases as they were tried before the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, easily said court had original jurisdiction to try each and everyone of them. 9 Reason therefor is that the penalty imposable for the crime of theft of large cattle, where, as here, the value of each carabao is over P50.00 and does not exceed P200.00, is well beyond the statutory minimum of six months’ imprisonment. 10 Treated again as five separate cases, the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan is concurrent with that of the Justice of the Peace Court of Angat. 11

However, as stated, the Court of Appeals found as a fact, that only one crime covering the theft of all the five carabaos was committed by petitioner and that the aggregate value thereof is P930.00. Accordingly, the single case, as it was ultimately decided by the Court of Appeals, falls exclusively within the jurisdictional area allocated to the Court of First Instance of Bulacan.

Since the Court of First Instance of Bulacan had jurisdiction, and petitioner submitted to the original exercise thereof by that court without objection, then he was properly convicted therein. And the Court of Appeals acquired appellate jurisdiction. 12 The judgment of the Court of Appeals stands.

Upon the foregoing considerations, we resolve to dismiss the appeal by certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals. So ordered.

Reyes, J .B.L., Makalintal, Bengzon, J .P., Zaldivar, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J. and Dizon, J., are on official leave.

Endnotes:



1. Criminal Case 3915-3919, "People of the Philippines, Plaintiff, v. Pablo de Guzman, Accused."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. No provision for indemnity was made because the animals were recovered.

3. CA-G.R. 04447-50-CR, "People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. Pablo de Guzman, Defendant-Appellant."cralaw virtua1aw library

4. Sec. 87, par. (b), subpar, (3), R.A. 296, as amended.

5. U.S. v. Ang Suyco, 17 Phil. 92, 93-94; Carroll v. Paredes, 17 Phil. 94, 100-101. Cf. U.S. v. Bernardo, 19 Phil. 265, 269-272.

6. People v. Celis, 101 Phil. 586, 589-590.

7. Section 11, Rule 40 of the New Rules of Court, reads:

"SEC. 11. Lack of jurisdiction. — A case tried by an inferior court without jurisdiction over the subject matter shall be dismissed on appeal by the Court of First Instance. But instead of dismissing the case, the Court of First Instance in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, may try the case on the merits if the parties therein file their pleadings and go to the trial without any objection to such jurisdiction.

8. Cañaveral v. Encarnacion, 95 Phil. 848, 852; Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. v. Lejano, 58 Off. Gaz. No. 17, pp. 3276, 3277-3278; Aureo v. Aureo, 56 Off. Gaz. No. 42, pp. 6465, 6468; Guitarte v. Sabaco, 60 Off. Gaz. No. 27, pp. 3894, 3895 Angeles v. Guevara, 61 Off. Gaz. No. 7, pp. 864, 866-867; Evangelista v. Reyes, L-20416, January 30, 1964. Cf. Geraldez v. Rodriguez, L-17064, November 9, 1964; General Insurance and Surety Corporation v. Castelo, L-19330, April 30, 1965; Ganancial v. Atillo, L-20830, June 28, 1965.

9. Section 44 (f), Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, reads:

"SEC. 44. Original jurisdiction. — Court of First Instance shall have original jurisdiction:

x       x       x

(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;

x       x       x

10. Article 310, in relation to Article 309, par. 4, Revised Penal Code.

11. Section 87, par. (b), subpar. (3), Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, reads:

"SEC. 87. Original jurisdiction to try criminal cases. — Municipal judges and judges of city courts of chartered cities shall have original jurisdiction over:

x       x       x

(b) all criminal cases arising under the laws relating to:

x       x       x

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

x       x       x

12. See Sections 29 and 31, in relation to Section 17, Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended.




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






July-1967 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-23258 July 1, 1967 - ROBERTO R. MONROY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26532 July 10, 1967 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26237 July 10, 1967 - NORTH BRITISH & MERCANTILE INSURANCE CO., LTD. v. ISTHMIAN LINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24704 July 10, 1967 - AUYONG HIAN v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19535 July 10, 1967 - PIO MINDANAO, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20086 July 10, 1967 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. SEGUNDO FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-24520 July 11, 1967 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23133 July 13, 1967 - VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25859 July 13, 1967 - FRANCISCO LOPEZ v. AUDITOR GENERAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-24340-44 July 18, 1967 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. ENRIQUE MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21054 July 18, 1967 - IN RE: MIGUEL CHUN ENG GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19600 July 19, 1967 - SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE MAGLANOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23176 & L-23177 July 20, 1967 - PABLO R. TONGCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23229 July 20, 1967 - ANDRES P. BARING v. CESAR M. CABAHUG

  • G.R. No. L-25662 July 21, 1967 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21495 July 21, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. POLICARPIO HALASAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22174 July 21, 1967 - ESPERANZA P. DE HARDEN v. FRED M. HARDEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22356 July 21, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO B. PATANAO

  • G.R. No. L-23956 July 21, 1967 - ELPIDIO JAVELLANA v. NICOLAS LUTERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23982 July 21, 1967 - DOMINGO ARAO, ET AL. v. ANTONIO R. LUSPO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24321 July 21, 1967 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC. v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23538 July 21, 1967 - CONSUELO VELAYO v. RODOLFO VELAYO

  • G.R. No. 24322 July 21, 1967 - IN RE: ORMOC SUGAR COMPANY, INC. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ORMOC CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24989 July 21, 1967 - PEDRO GRAVADOR v. EUTIQUIO MAMIGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26222 July 21, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANDO PINEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26959 July 21, 1967 - OSCAR V. CO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27121 July 21, 1967 - JOSE OSCAR M. SALAZAR, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 483 July 21, 1967 - GIL DE LOS SANTOS v. MARIO BOLANOS

  • G.R. No. L-25515 July 24, 1967 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18060 July 25, 1967 - REMIGIO JOAQUIN v. ISIDRA CUJUANGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26245 July 25, 1967 - PABLO MONTEZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26764 July 25, 1967 - BACHRACH TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. v. RURAL TRANSIT SHOP EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23118 July 26, 1967 - POLICARPIO VIRAY, ET AL. v. CITY OF CALOOCAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26605 July 27, 1967 - PABLO D. SUAREZ, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27671 & L-27684-86 July 27, 1967 - PABLO DE GUZMAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-27477 July 28, 1967 - TEODORO JULIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 19373 July 29, 1967 - FELIX ASEJO, ET AL. v. ADRIANO CHUA JOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24693 July 31, 1967 - ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL AND MOTEL OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. CITY MAYOR OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-20560 July 31, 1967 - EMILIANO ACUÑA v. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20649 July 31, 1967 - CHUC SIU, ET AL. v. THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-21275 July 31, 1967 - ZAMBOANGA GENERAL UTILITIES, INC. v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE & NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21588 July 31, 1967 - ATLAS DEVELOPMENT AND ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION v. BENJAMIN M. GOZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22501 July 31, 1967 - MARIANO CALLEJA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22604 July 31, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO PORTUGUEZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23002 July 31, 1967 - CONCEPCION FELIX VDA. DE RODRIGUEZ v. GERONIMO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24930 July 31, 1967 - SHELL REFINING COMPANY (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27492 July 31, 1967 - SALUSTIANO O. MANALO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.