Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1969 > January 1969 Decisions > G.R. No. L-25305 January 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONCHITA COOK, ET., AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-25305. January 31, 1969.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONCHITA COOK and S/SGT. DONALD COOK, Defendants-Appellees.

Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, Assistant Solicitor General Antonio A. Torres and Solicitor Hector C. Fule, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Maximiano Q. Canlas for Defendants-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; COURTS; MUNICIPAL AND CITY COURTS; JURISDICTION IN ESTAFA CASES. — As far as estafa cases are concerned, if the sum of money or the value of the property involved does not exceed P200.00, justices of the peace (municipal judges) and judges of municipal courts of chartered cities have original and exclusive jurisdiction to try and decide them, while the same courts would have original but concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance of the province over the same cases and others, provided the penalty provided by law does not exceed prision correccional, or imprisonment for not more than six years, or a fine not exceeding P6,000, or both.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PENALTY THEREOF. — The penalty provided for by Article 315, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period. Consequently, the City Court of Angeles City has original but concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance of Pampanga to try and decide the case before Us which is ordered remanded for further proceedings in accordance with law.


D E C I S I O N


DIZON, J.:


In the City Court of Angeles City, Pampanga the City Fiscal prosecuted Donald Cook and Conchita Cook for estafa, the money involved amounting to P5,100.00. The defendants filed a motion to quash upon the ground that the Court did not have jurisdiction over the offense charged. After hearing the parties the Court dismissed the case precisely on that ground. Hence the present appeal by the State.

The issue to be resolved now — whether or not the City Court of Angeles City has jurisdiction over the case — requires construction of the provisions of paragraphs b and c of Section 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended by Republic Act 3823. Under the first it is clear that justices of the peace (municipal judges) and judges of municipal courts of chartered cities have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases of larceny, embezzlement and estafa where the amount of money or property stolen, embezzled, or otherwise involved does not exceed the sum or value of P200.00. It is similarly obvious that under the second provision, justices of the peace in the capitals of provinces and subprovinces and judges of municipal courts have like jurisdiction as the Court of First Instance to try parties charged with an offense committed within their respective jurisdiction in which the penalty provided by law does not exceed prision correccional or imprisonment for not more than six years or a fine not exceeding P6,000, or both etc. We do not see any conflict between the two legal provisions under consideration. As far as estafa cases are concerned, if the sum of money or the value of the property involved does not exceed P200.00, justices of the peace (municipal judges) and judges of municipal courts of chartered cities have original and exclusive jurisdiction to try and decide them, while the same courts would have original but concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance of the province over the same cases and others, provided the penalty provided by law does not exceed prision correccional, or imprisonment for not more than six years, or a fine not exceeding P6,000, or both.

In the case before Us the penalty provided for by Article 315, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in minimum period. Consequently, the City Court of Angeles City has original but concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance of Pampanga to try and decide the same.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the order appealed from is set aside and this case is remanded below for further proceedings in accordance with law.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez Ruiz Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee, and Barredo, 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






January-1969 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 554 January 3, 1969 - BRIGIDO TOQUIB v. VALERIANO TOMOL, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-24266 January 24, 1969 - AMPARO D. SANTOS v. ANGEL H. MOJICA, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26556 January 24, 1969 - MARIA REYES DE TOLENTINO v. GODOFREDO ESCALONA

  • G.R. No. L-18841 January 27, 1969 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PHIL. LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO.

  • G.R. No. L-20143 January 27, 1969 - PHIL. AMERICAN EMBROIDERIES, INC. v. EMBROIDERY & GARMENT WORKERS UNION

  • G.R. No. L-26093 January 27, 1969 - VIRGINIA L. DE CASTRO v. PIO MARCOS

  • G.R. No. L-26170 January 27, 1969 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. SUSANA ROMUALDO, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29354 January 27, 1969 - ALEJANDRO C. SIAZON v. HON. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF COTABATO (BRANCH II)

  • A.C. No. 716 January 30, 1969 - EDUARDO J. BERENGUER v. PEDRO B. CARRANZA

  • G.R. No. L-22552 January 30, 1969 - COM. OF IMMIGRATION v. ASIAN SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-29599 January 30, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISABELO MONTEMAYOR, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22670 January 31, 1969 - GUALBERTO V. MAGNO v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

  • G.R. No. L-25305 January 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONCHITA COOK, ET., AL.

  • A.C. No. 724 January 31, 1969 - FLORENTINO B. DEL ROSARIO v. EUGENIO MILLADO

  • G.R. No. L-25450 January 31, 1969 - LEONARDO SANTOS v. ANGEL H. MOJICA

  • G.R. No. L-26968 January 31, 1969 - TROPICAL BUILDING SPECIALTIES v. JAIME NUEVAS

  • G.R. No. L-27005 January 31, 1969 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PHIL. MILLING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-25141 January 31, 1969 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SYLVIA DE KALINTAS, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25553 January 31, 1969 - NATIONAL MARKETING CORP. v. GABINO MARQUEZ, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26104 January 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELSO ACABADO

  • G.R. No. L-24471 January 31, 1969 - SILVERIO MARCHAN v. ARSENIO MENDOZA, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25739 & L-25886 January 31, 1969 - DIONISIO PALTENG, ET., AL. v. JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-27802 January 31, 1969 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CENTRAL SURETY & INSURANCE CO.

  • G.R. No. L-23247 January 31, 1969 - ALIPIO N. CASILAN v. CONCEPCION KAPUNAN DE SALCEDO, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-23513 January 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE OMPAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26751 January 31, 1969 - JOSE S. MATUTE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-27319 January 31, 1969 - JOSE MA. LOCSIN, ET., AL. v. RAFAEL C. CLIMACO

  • G.R. No. L-20908 January 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. UNUH BAKANG, ET., AL

  • G.R. No. L-29729 January 31, 1969 - DEMETRIO JAUGAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-29755 January 31, 1969 - DOMINGO N. SARCOS v. RECAREDO CASTILLO