January 1978 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1978 > January 1978 Decisions > G.R. No. L-46228 January 17, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO R. VILLARAZA, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-46228. January 17, 1978.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HON. ROLANDO R. VILLARAZA (as City Judge of Cagayan de Oro City), and CAESAR PUERTO, Respondents.

Francisco P. Rabanes, Edgardo Y. Raagas, Casiano A. Gamotin, Jr., Office of the City Fiscal of Cagayan de Oro City for Petitioner.

Eric Menchavez for respondent Caesar Puerto.

SYNOPSIS

Private respondent was charged with estafa in the city court for having issued on October 16, 1974 two bouncing checks for the total sum of P4,966.63. Respondent judge elevated the case to the Court of First Instance; but the latter returned the case to respondent judge, because in its opinion the case falls within the concurrent jurisdiction of the two courts, and the city court, as the first court which took cognizance of the case, should try it. Disagreeing with the Court of First Instance, respondent city judge directed the re-elevation of the case because the estafa committed by the accused is punishable by prision mayor medium under Presidential Decree No. 818, which took effect on October 22, 1974.

Respondent judge’s order is assailed by the city fiscal in this petition for certiorari.

The Supreme Court held that the case was properly filed with the city court which had original jurisdiction over it. The penalty of prision mayor medium does not apply to estafa committed prior to the promulgation of Presidential Decree no. 818.

The order of the Court of First Instance returning the case to the city court is affirmed and the two orders of the respondent city judge, elevating the case to the Court of First Instance, are set aside. The City Court is directed to try the case.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; EX POST FACTO LAW; INCREASED PENALTY IMPOSED BY PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 818 HAS NO RETROACTIVE EFFECT. — The increased penalty imposed by Presidential Decree No. 818 for the crime of estafa does not apply to estafa committed prior to its promulgation, otherwise it would make the decree an ex-post facto law. Its retroactive application is prohibited by articles 21 and 22 of the Revised Penal Code and section 12, Article IV of the Constitution.

2. COURTS; CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF CITY COURTS AND COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE OVER OFFENSES IN WHICH THE PENALTY PROVIDED BY LAW DOES NOT EXCEED SIX YEARS. — Under section 87 of the Judiciary Law, as amended by Republic Acts Nos. 2613 and 3828, 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 jurisdiction, in which the penalty provided by law does not exceed prision mayor or imprisonment for not more than six years or fine not exceeding six thousand pesos or both.

3. ID.; PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION, CITY COURT NEED NOT CONDUCT PRELIMINARY WHERE CASE IS FILED BY FISCAL. — It is not necessary for the city court to conduct a preliminary investigation over a criminal case filed by the fiscal. The filing of the information by the fiscal presupposes that he had conducted the requisite preliminary investigation pursuant to Rule 112 of the Rules of Court and Republic Act 5180 as amended by Presidential Decree No. 77.


D E C I S I O N


AQUINO, J.:


This case is about the jurisdiction of a city court in estafa cases.

On December 3, 1975 an assistant city fiscal charged Caesar Puerto with estafa in the city court of Cagayan de Oro City for having issued on October 16, 1974 two bouncing checks for the total sum of P4,966.63 (Criminal Case No. 32140).

City Judge Rolando R. Villaraza in his order dated March 31, 1976 noted that the accused had waived the second stage of the preliminary investigation. He directed that the case be elevated, for trial, to the Court of First Instance or the Circuit Criminal Court.

Upon petition of the prosecution, the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental, Cagayan de Oro Branch VIII, in its order of February 3, 1977 returned the case to the city court because in its opinion the case falls within the concurrent jurisdiction of the two courts and, the city court, as the first court which took cognizance of the case, should try it.

Disagreeing with the Court of First Instance, respondent city judge in his order of April 21, 1977 directed the re-elevation of the case. His view is that the case falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance because estafa committed by the accused is punishable by prision mayor medium under Presidential Decree No. 818 which took effect on October 22, 1975 and which amended article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.chanrobles law library : red

That order of respondent judge is assailed in the petition for certiorari filed in this Court on May 27, 1977 by the office of the city fiscal of Cagayan de Oro City.

We hold that the case was property filed with the city court which has original jurisdiction over it. The estafa imputed to Caesar Puerto is punishable under article 315 of the Revised Penal Code by arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum or four months and one day to two years and four months.

The penalty of prision mayor medium, or eight years and one day to ten years, imposed by Presidential Decree No. 818, applies only to swindling by means of issuing bouncing checks which was committed on or after October 22, 1975.

That increased penalty does not apply to the estafa committed by Puerto on October 16, 1974. To apply it to Puerto would make the decree an ex post facto law. Its retroactive application is prohibited by articles 21 and 22 of the Revised Penal Code and section 12, Article IV of the Constitution.

The city court has original jurisdiction over the case because the penultimate paragraph of section 87 of the Judiciary Law, as amended by Republic Acts Nos. 2613 and 3828, provides that "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

As section 87 itself shows, that jurisdiction is concurrent with the Court of First Instance which is empowered to try "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" (Sec. 44[f], Judiciary Law. See People v. Nazareno, L-40037, April 30, 1976, 70 SCRA 531).

It was not necessary for the city court to have conducted the preliminary investigation of the case. The filing of the information by the fiscal presupposes that he had conducted the requisite preliminary Investigation pursuant to Rule 112 of the Rules of Court and Republic Act No. 5180, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 77.

WHEREFORE, the order of the Court of First Instance, returning the case to the city court, is affirmed and the two orders of the respondent city judge, elevating the case to the Court of First Instance are set aside. The city court is directed to try the case. No costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.

Santos, J., is on leave.




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-1978 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. 1349-CFI January 5, 1978 - CORONACION P. BIABAN v. AMELIA K. DEL ROSARIO

  • A.M. No. P-1251 January 6, 1978 - HERMINIA V. GALMAN, ET AL. v. JESUS GUASCH

  • G.R. No. L-31490 January 6, 1978 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. BISAYA LAND TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-45513-14 January 6, 1978 - FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER EMPLOYEES UNION v. FRANCISCO L. ESTRELLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29618 January 9, 1978 - BISAYA LAND TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., ET AL. v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29791 January 10, 1978 - FRANCISCO S. HERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. RURAL BANK OF LUCENA, INC., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 75-6-DJ January 17, 1978 - DANIEL B. GALANGI v. GEORGE C. MACLI-ING

  • G.R. No. L-46228 January 17, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO R. VILLARAZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30745 January 18, 1978 - PHILIPPINE MATCH CO., LTD. v. CITY OF CEBU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36016 January 18, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO CAGOD, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-33252-54 January 20, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LICERIO P. SENDAYDIEGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31494 January 23, 1978 - PASTOR LOPEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39037 January 23, 1978 - INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA, ET AL. v. ISIDRO C. BORROMEO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43233 January 23, 1978 - CITIZENS’ SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC. v. ALFREDO B. CONCEPCION

  • A.M. No. 755-MJ January 31, 1978 - ROGELIO PESOLE v. LUCIO L. RODRIGUEZ

  • A.M. No. P-902 & 926 January 31, 1978 - HAKIM S. ABDULWAHID v. EFREN B. REYES

  • A.M. No. P-1065 January 31, 1978 - ANDRES M. AQUINO v. MELECIO N. AFICIAL

  • A.M. No. P-1243 January 31, 1978 - FELICITAS SALAZAR CHOCO, ET AL. v. DEMETRIO S. VILLAFLOR

  • A.M. No. 1312-CFI January 31, 1978 - ANTONIO V. RAQUIZA v. MARIANO CASTAÑEDA, JR., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 1628-CAR January 31, 1978 - EMILIANO C. VALDEZ v. MIGUEL T. VALERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24332 January 31, 1978 - RAMON RALLOS v. FELIX GO CHAN & SONS REALTY CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-26367 January 31, 1978 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CONSUELO GUARIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27082 January 31, 1978 - FILOMENO COCA v. GUADALUPE PIZARRAS VDA. DE PANGILINAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30764 January 31, 1978 - DIONISIO DEMONTAÑO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31339 January 31, 1978 - VILLA REY TRANSIT, INC., ET AL. v. FAR EAST MOTOR CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32300 January 31, 1978 - PILLSBURY MINDANAO FLOUR MILLING COMPANY, INC., ET AL. v. FELIX MURILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32667 January 31, 1978 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33340 January 31, 1978 - FELIPE SAMSON v. FELICIANA RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33367 January 31, 1978 - RODOLFO A. PAET, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33549 January 31, 1978 - BANCO ATLANTICO v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-35412 January 31, 1978 - REMEGIO CORTES, ET AL. v. VICENTE O. FRIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39674 January 31, 1978 - URBANA VELASCO AROC v. PEOPLE’S HOMESITE AND HOUSING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39822 January 31, 1978 - ANTONIO E. PRATS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40533 January 31, 1978 - COSME CABIO, ET AL. v. BONIFACIO ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40804 January 31, 1978 - ROSARIO FELICIANO VDA. DE RAMOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40846 January 31, 1978 - ARSENIO N. SALCEDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-41192-93 January 31, 1978 - ONG TIAO SENG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42631 January 31, 1978 - LEOPOLDO LORENZO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42739 January 31, 1978 - AMADO T. CRUZ v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43672 January 31, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS B. RUIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44909 January 31, 1978 - LEONCIO SY Y. ANG v. RICARDO Y. NAVARRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45335 January 31, 1978 - TEOFISTA DE CASTRO BALAJADIA, ET AL. v. GREGORIO G. PINEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46179 January 31, 1978 - CANDIDA VIRATA, ET AL. v. VICTORIO OCHOA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47074 January 31, 1978 - LAPERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. ABRAHAM P. VERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47426 January 31, 1978 - EVELYN B. BALA v. GEN. FIDEL RAMOS, ET AL.