Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > October 1967 Decisions > G.R. No. L-23848 October 31, 1967 - PORFIRIO RILLORAZA v. PEDRO ARCIAGA, ETC., ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-23848. October 31, 1967.]

PORFIRIO RILLORAZA, Petitioner-Appellee, v. JUDGE PEDRO ARCIAGA, ETC., ET AL., Respondents. EULALIA BANAYAT, Respondent-Appellant.

Benjamin C. Rollin for Petitioner.

Jose A. Solomon for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. JURISDICTION; HOW DETERMINED IN CRIMINAL CASES. — Jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is determined by the law in force at the time the action is instituted. (People v. Pegarum, 58 Phil., 715, 717; People v. Romualdo, 90 Phil., 739, 744; Ferrer v. Pecson, 92 Phil., 172, 175; Paringit v. Masakayan, L-16578, July 31, 1961; People v. Adolfo, L-24191; March 31, 1965.)

2. ID.; ID.; JURISDICTION OF JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURTS IN PROVINCIAL CAPITALS. — Under Republic Act 2613 the justice of the peace courts in provincial capitals were empowered to hear and determine cases when the penalty involved "does not exceed prision correccional or imprisonment for not more than six years or fine not exceeding three thousand pesos or both." Where the charge is direct assault upon a person in authority, the justice of the peace court of the provincial capital has jurisdiction to try the case, because the penalty provided therefor by Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding one thousand pesos.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; EFFECT OF SUBSEQUENT STATUTE REMOVING JURISDICTION. — Once jurisdiction to try a criminal case is acquired, it remains with the court until the case is finally determined therein. A subsequent statute removing jurisdiction will not operate to oust that jurisdiction. (People v. Pegarum, supra.)

4. STATUTES: RETROACTIVE EFFECTIVITY; REPUBLIC ACTS 2613 AND 3828 NOT PENAL STATUTES. — Republic Act 2613 and Republic Act 3828, like Republic Act 296 which they amend, neither speak of acts or omissions punishable by law nor define crimes or provide penalties therefor, but merely delineate the jurisdiction of courts; hence they are not penal statutes, Consequently, Republic Act 3828 cannot have, as it did not provide for, retroactive effectivity.


D E C I S I O N


SANCHEZ, J.:


The jurisdictional issue thrust upon us stems from facts following: On June 18, 1963, respondent Eulalia Banayat, head teacher, filed in the Municipal Court of San Fernando, La Union, against petitioner, a criminal complaint for the crime of direct assault upon a person in authority, allegedly committed in Naguilian, La Union. 1 On February 7, 1964, petitioner moved to quash, planted on lack of jurisdiction. This was denied. Hearing on the merits, in the court’s exercise of original jurisdiction, commenced. Three prosecution witnesses were able to testify. Stenographic record of their testimony was taken. On June 3, 1964, petitioner went to the Court of First Instance of La Union on certiorari and prohibition. 2 On October 8, 1964, the Court of First Instance of La Union came out with an order declaring the proceedings conducted by respondent municipal judge null and void, and directing him to desist from continuing with the hearing of the case, and to transmit the record thereof to the Municipal Court of Naguilian, La Union, for the necessary preliminary investigation. Hence, the present appeal.

1. A choice is forced upon us as to which of two statutes should govern the jurisdictional boundaries of the Municipal Court of San Fernando, La Union: Republic Act 2613 or Republic Act 3828. For convenience, we reproduce the penultimate paragraph of Section 87 (c), Republic Act 296 (Judiciary Act of 1948), as it was amended by said Republic Act 2613, which took effect on August 1, 1959, viz:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Justices of the peace in the capitals of provinces and judges of municipal courts shall have like jurisdiction as the Court of First Instance to try parties charged with an offense committed within the province in which the penalty provided by law does not exceed prision correccional or imprisonment for not more than six years or fine not exceeding three thousand pesos or both . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Upon the other hand, the same particular provision of the Judiciary Act of 1948, amended by Republic Act 2613, was subsequently amended by Republic Act 3828 which took effect on June 22, 1963 and which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Municipal judges in the capitals of provinces and sub-provinces and Judges of city courts shall have like jurisdiction as the Court of First Instance to try parties charged with an offense committed within their respective jurisdictions, in which the penalty provided by law does not exceed prision correccional or imprisonment for not more than six years or fine not exceeding six thousand pesos or both, . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

A rule long respected is that jurisdiction of a court of justice to try a criminal case is determined by the law in force at the time the action is instituted. 3 Since prosecution here was started on June 18, 1963 when Republic Act 2613 was in force, this law should be looked up to in ascertaining whether or not respondent Judge had jurisdiction to try the case. By this statute, the justice of the peace court in provincial capitals was empowered to hear and determine cases where the penalty involved "does not exceed prision correccional or imprisonment for not more than six years or fine not exceeding three thousand pesos or both." The charge is direct assault upon a person in authority, encompassed in Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty provided therein is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding one thousand pesos. Therefore, the Justice of the Peace Court of San Fernando, the capital of La Union, has jurisdiction to try this case.

2. The lower court, however, is of the impression that the passage of Republic Act 3828 on June 22, 1963, i.e., four days after the criminal complaint was lodged in court, operates to divest the Municipal Court of San Fernando, La Union, of jurisdiction, and place it in the Court of First Instance of the same province. 4 Because, so the court states, Republic Act 3828 limits jurisdiction of municipal courts in provincial capitals and city courts only to crimes "committed within their respective jurisdictions in which the penalty provided by law does not exceed prision correccional or fine not exceeding P6,000 or both" ; and also "when the justice of the peace court goes beyond the limits of the jurisdiction it possesses at the time of the trial, its actuation may be questioned as the offense with which the petitioner is tried is no longer within the class of crimes placed by law under its jurisdiction." This is incorrect. Once jurisdiction to try a criminal case is acquired, that jurisdiction remains with the court until the case is finally determined therein. A subsequent statute removing jurisdiction "will not operate to oust jurisdiction already attached." 5 This Court, as early as 1913, observed that" [i]t is a subversion of the judicial power to take a cause from a court having jurisdiction before its final decision is given." 6 So it is, that in Iburan v. Labes 87 Phil. 234, 238, we declared that" [w]here a court originally obtains and exercises jurisdiction, jurisdiction will not be overturned and impaired by any legislative enactment unless express prohibitory words 7 are used, and jurisdiction duly acquired under an existing statute is not taken away by a subsequent statute prescribing a different method of commencing an action."cralaw virtua1aw library

We, accordingly, rule that passage of Republic Act 3828 did not take away jurisdiction over the case from the Municipal (Justice of the Peace) Court of San Fernando, La Union.

3. There is no point to the argument that Republic Act 3828 is also penal in nature and, therefore, should be given retroactive effect, as it is favorable to the accused. All that petitioner could muster on this point is that under the new law he would be afforded all opportunity for a preliminary investigation in Naguilian. There is not much to this argument. The case has gone quite far in the San Fernando court. Except for possible delay, we perceive no appreciable advantage to petitioner. The least that can be said is that in a situation like the present, where hearing has already started, it would not serve public interest any to uproot the action, refile it in another court, discard the testimony already recorded, and start the case anew.

And then, both laws, as is RA 296 which they amend, merely delineate the jurisdiction of courts. They do not speak of acts or omissions punishable by law. They do not define crimes nor provide penalties therefor. Penal statutes refer to those laws by which punishments are imposed for some violation or transgression of some of their provisions. 8 Republic Act 3828 cannot have, as it did not provide for, retroactive effectivity.

Accordingly, we reverse and set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of La Union of October 8, 1964, dismiss the petition for certiorari and prohibition, and direct that the Municipal Court of San Fernando, La Union, continue with Criminal Case No. 4987 of said court until final determination thereof. Costs against petitioner. So ordered.

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

Endnotes:



1. Criminal Case 4987 of the Justice of the Peace Court of San Fernando, La Union, entitled "The People of the Philippines, Plaintiff, v. Dr. Porfirio Rilloraza, Accused."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. Civil case 1961 of the Court of First Instance of La Union, entitled "Porfirio Rilloraza, Petitioner, v. Judge Pedro Arciaga, in his capacity as Judge, Municipal Court, San Fernando, La Union, and Eulalia Banayat respondents."cralaw virtua1aw library

3. People v. Pegarum, 58 Phil. 715, 717; People v. Romualdo, 90 Phil. 739, 744; Ferrer v. Pecson, 92 Phil. 172, 175; Paringit v. Masakayan, L-16578, July 31, 1961; People v. Adolfo, L-24181, March 31, 1965.

4. See Section 44 (f), Judiciary Act of 1948.

5. People v. Pegarum, supra, at p. 717, citing 16 C.J., sec. 246. p. 181.

6. Government v. Gale, 24 Phil. 95, 100; Italics supplied.

7. No prohibitory words are employed in R.A. 3828.

8. 31 Words and Phrases, Perm. ed., p. 589; 2 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third revision, p. 2551.




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-1967 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-27583 October 10, 1967 - MARGARITO J. LOFRANCO v. JESUS JIMENEZ, SR.

  • Adm. Case No. 528 October 11, 1967 - ANGEL ALBANO v. PERPETUA COLOMA

  • G.R. No. L-16315 October 10, 1967 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-23124 October 11, 1967 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-23638 and L-23662 October 12, 1967 - DIONISIO FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. ISMAELA DIMAGIBA

  • G.R. No. L-27394 October 13, 1967 - ARMANDO V. AMPIL v. CORAZON JULIANO- AGRAVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27516 October 19, 1967 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28071 October 13, 1967 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 736 October 23, 1967 - MANUEL R. GO v. ROMULO CANDOY

  • G.R. No. L-19804 October 23, 1967 - LEON BALBAS, ET AL. v. MELECIO R. DOMINGO

  • G.R. No. L-24693 October 23, 1967 - ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL AND MOTEL OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. CITY MAYOR OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-25162 October 23, 1967 - CHAMPION AUTO SUPPLY CO., INC. v. BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, ETC.

  • G.R. No. L-25362 October 23, 1967 - HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE CO. v. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25477 October 23, 1967 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 25478 October 23, 1967 - AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25784 October 23, 1967 - FIREMEN’S INSURANCE COMPANY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25871 October 23, 1967 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26618 October 23, 1967 - FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27077 October 23, 1967 - NORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23181 October 24, 1967 - IN RE: TAN SEN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18440 October 25, 1967 - HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY v. AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24757 October 25, 1967 - MARCOS B. COMILANG v. GENEROSO A. BUENDIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28089 October 25, 1967 - BARA LIDASAN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. L-21069 October 26, 1967 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY COMPANY, INC. v. RODOLFO R. VELAYO

  • G.R. No. L-22488 October 26, 1967 - MATEO C. BACALSO, ET AL. v. MODESTO R. RAMOLETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22371 October 26, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO DAGA

  • G.R. No. L-22392 October 26, 1967 - RURAL TRANSIT EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION v. BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-24844 and L-24853 October 26, 1967 - MACARIO AROCHA v. MARTINIANO VIVO, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19012 October 30, 1967 - VICTORIA JULIO v. EMILIANO DALANDAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20175 October 30, 1967 - MARIA A. GARCIA, ET AL. v. RITA LEGARDA, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-20432 October 30, 1967 - JOSE MANALANG, ET AL. v. ARTEX DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20911 October 30, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SULPICIO DE LA CERNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22082 October 30, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISABEL P. DEL CARMEN

  • G.R. No. L-23715 October 30, 1967 - STATE BONDING & INSURANCE CO., INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23797 October 30, 1967 - JUAN E. SEVILLA v. LEONCIO PARINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23811 October 30, 1967 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27341 October 30, 1967 - IN RE: P.J. KIENER COMPANY, LTD., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28055 October 30, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN MONTANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21258 October 31, 1967 - FILIPINAS LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22459 October 31, 1967 - ANTONIO V. ROQUE v. BIENVENIDO P. BUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22555 October 31, 1967 - PHILIPPINE IRON MINES, INC. v. TOMAS ABEAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23090 October 31, 1967 - PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. NICASIO A. YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20303 October 31, 1967 - REPUBLIC SAVINGS BANK v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20346 October 31, 1967 - CITY MAYOR, ET AL. v. CHIEF PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21473 October 31, 1967 - PERFECTO D. KORDOVEZ v. SOFRONIO C. CARMONA

  • G.R. No. L-21556 October 31, 1967 - PHILIPPINE SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC. v. BEATRIZ ZABAL

  • G.R. No. L-22206 October 31, 1967 - FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENCIO DIAMANTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22538 October 31, 1967 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. PRIMITIVA MALLORCA

  • G.R. No. L-22576 October 31, 1967 - ALPHA INSURANCE & SURETY CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23566 October 31, 1967 - ELENA L. GARCIA v. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23636 October 31, 1967 - TABACALERA INSURANCE COMPANY v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23848 October 31, 1967 - PORFIRIO RILLORAZA v. PEDRO ARCIAGA, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24154 October 31, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22357 October 31, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE GUMAHIN

  • G.R. No. L-23196 October 31, 1967 - LAUREANO OLIVA v. NICOLAS V. LAMADRID, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23300 October 31, 1967 - ANDRES MANARPAAC, ET AL. v. ROSALINO CABANATAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23395 October 31, 1967 - AUYONG HIAN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-25945 October 31, 1967 - NORBERTO B. PAA v. QUINTIN CHAN

  • G.R. No. L-24106 October 31, 1967 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. WARNER, BARNES & CO., LTD., ET AL.