ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 121731-33. March 3, 2004]
PEOPLE vs. DAVID
SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 3 2004.
G.R. Nos. 121731-33 (People of the Philippines vs. Darwin David.)
Before us is a motion for reconsideration of our Decision promulgated on November 12, 2003 affirming the judgment of conviction rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 136 against Darwin David for three counts of rape of 14-year -old Agnes Thomas and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The motion filed by appellant's counsel of record seeks the reconsideration of our decision on two grounds: (a) the alleged misappreciation of private complainant's inconsistent statements and (b) the lack of jurisdiction of the Makati RTC to take cognizance of the case considering that the crime was committed in Para�aque City.
The first issue has been thoroughly discussed in our decision and appellant has failed to show any reversible error that justifies the modification or reversal thereof.
Regarding the second issue, settled is the rule that the jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action. Once the court acquires jurisdiction over a controversy, it shall continue to exercise such jurisdiction until the final determination of the case and it is not affected by subsequent legislation vesting jurisdiction over such proceedings in another tribunal. [1] cralaw In the present case, the law force at the time of the filing of the information was BP Blg. 129, otherwise known as "The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980." Under Section 17 of the said law, the exercise of jurisdiction of the regional trial courts was, as its name suggested, basically regional in scope, thus:
Sec. 17. Appointment and assignment of Regional Trial Judges. - Every Regional Trial Judges shall be appointed to a region which shall be his permanent station, and his appointment shall state the branch of the court and the seat thereof to which he shall be originally assigned. However, the Supreme Court may assign temporarily a Regional Trial Judge to another region as public interest may require, provided that such temporary assignment shall not last longer than six (6) months without the consent of the Regional Trial Judge concerned.
A Regional Trial Judge may be assigned by the Supreme Court to any branch or city or municipality within the same region as public interest may require, and such assignment shall not be deemed as assignment to another station within the meaning of this section.
But, under Section 18 of the same law, the assignment of RTC judges was limited to the territorial area of the branch where they sat:
Sec. 18. Authority to define territory appurtenant to each branch. - The Supreme Court shall define the territory over which a branch of the Regional Trial Court shall exercise its authority. The territory thus defined shall be deemed to be the territorial area of the branch concerned for purposes of determining the venue of all suits, proceedings or actions, whether civil or criminal, as well as determining the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts over which the said branch may exercise appellate jurisdiction. The power herein granted shall be exercised with a view of making the courts readily accessible to the people of the different parts of the region and making the attendance of litigants and witnesses as inexpensive as possible.
Pursuant to the above-mentioned provision, the Court issued Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1983, defining the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts in the National Capital Judicial Region, [2] cralaw thus:
xxxxxx������ xxx
5. Branches CXXXII to CL, inclusive, with seats at Makati-over the municipalities of Las Piñas, Makati, Muntinlupa and Para�aque.
xxxxxx������ xxx
In view of the foregoing, the Makati RTC has jurisdiction to try the case even if the crime was committed in Para�aque.
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED. This denial is FINAL.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Alarilla vs. Sandiganbayan, 338 SCRA 485, 496 [2000].
[2] cralaw The National Capital Judicial Region, consisting of the cities of Manila, Quezon , Pasay and Caloocan, and the municipalities of Navotas, Malabon, San Juan, Mandaluyong, Makati, Pasig, Pateros, Taguig, Marikina, Para�aque, Las Piñas, Muntinlupa and Valenzuela.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
