THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. PACIFICO DOSE AND DIOSDADO DESCARES, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

On January 17, 1964, the Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo filed an
information in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, docketed as Criminal Case
No. 10168, accusing Pacifico Dose and Diosdado Descares of illegal pos­session
of firearms; it being alleged in the information that on November 12, 1963, in
the municipality of Dumangas, province of Iloilo, the two accused, working
together and helping one another, wilfully had in their possession and under
their control one (1) automatic pistol Colt, super .38, with ammunition,
without license or authority to possess or hold the same.

On August 4, 1964, the Court of First Instance of Iloilo issued
an order holding that it had no original jurisdiction to try the case and
remanding the case to the municipal court of Dumangas for trial on the merits,
and at the same time ordering the Provincial Fiscal to file the corresponding
information against the ac­cused in
the municipal court of Dumangas.

The Provincial Fiscal moved for the reconsidera­tion of the order
of August 4, 1964, arguing that under Section 44 (f) of the Judiciary Act of
1948, as amended, the Court of
First Instance has original concurrent jurisdiction with the municipal court to
try the case. On August 20, 1964, the
Court of First Instance of
Iloilo died the motion for reconsidera­tion. So, the People of the Philippines brought the instant appeal from the
two orders of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, dated August 4, 1964, and
August 20, 1964, on a question of law.

The State contends that the lower court erred in holding that it
did not have original jurisdiction to try a case of illegal possession of
firearms.

The orders appealed from are erroneous, and the appeal of the
State must be sustained. The Court of
First Instance of Iloilo was of the stand that the municipal court has
exclusive original jurisdiction to try a case of illegal possession of firearm,
because Section 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 (Republic Act No. 296), as amended
by Republic Act No. 3828,
provides as follows:

“SEC. 87. Original jurisdiction to try criminal cases. —
Justices of the peace and judges of municipal 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

“(9) Illegal possession of firearms explosives and ammunition;

x x x

On the other hand, it is the stand of the State that the Court of First Instance has
concurrent ori­ginal jurisdiction with the municipal court to try a case of illegal possession of firearms pursuant to
the provision of Section 44, Par (f), of the Judi­ciary Act of 1948
which provides as follows:

‘Sec. 44. Original
jurisdiction: — Courts 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

Under Republic Act No. 4,
illegal possession of firearms is punishable by imprisonment for a period of
not less than one year and one day nor
more than five years, or both such imprisonment and a fine of not less than
P1000.00 nor more than P5,000.00 in the discretion of the court.

The issue to be resolved is this: Is the crime of illegal possession of
firearm within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the
municipal courts by virtue of Section 87 (b), par. (9) of the Judiciary Act of
1948, as amended, or do Courts of First Instance have concurrent original
jurisdiction with the municipal courts to try such a case?

The decision of this
Court in the case of Nati­vidad
vs. Robles, 87 Phil. 834,
836-837, squarely set­tles the issue raised in the present case. We held:

“Formerly the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace courts
in criminal cases was limited to offenses penalized with imprisonment of not
more than six months or a fine of not more than P200. But later such jurisdiction was enlarged and made to extend to specific
offenses independently of
the penalties provided by law
therefor.….

x x x

“This new jurisdiction of justice of
the peace courts is exactly the same jurisdiction vested long ago in the
Municipal Courts of the City of Manila, (section 2468 of the Administrative
Code as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 361) and is also the same juris­diction vested
later in the municipal courts of other chartered cities such as Cebu, Iloilo, Baguio, San Pablo and
Cavite. In other words, justice of the peace courts are empowered to
impose penalties higher than ‘imprison­ment of six months or sine of
P200 where the offense charged is one of those specified in the above quoted
provision of the Judiciary Act.

“Upon the other hand, section 44 (f) of the same Republic Act
No. 296, confers upon the Court of First Instance original jurisdiction ‘in all
criminal cases in which the penalty provided by law is imprisonment for wore than six (6) months or a fine of
more than P200.’ This provision should be construed together with section 37
(b) above quoted, and such construction should be adopted which harmonizes the
two provisions, giving equal effectivity to both of them. Accordingly the jurisdiction of the two
courts over the specific offenses above mentioned must be constructed as
concurrent when the penalty to be imposed is more than six months
imprisonment or a fine of more than P200.” (Underscoring supplied).

The aforequoted ruling of this Court has been re­affirmed in
many subsequent cases, and this Court has made it clear that because Section 44
of the Judiciary Act of 1948, vesting the Court of First Instance ori­ginal jurisdiction over offenses penalized
by law with imprisonment of more
than six months or a fine of more P200.00, has been left unaltered the
enlargement of the former jurisdiction of municipal courts pursuant to the amendatory provisions of Republic
Act No. 3828 has resulted in concurrent jurisdiction of both courts over crimes
penalized with imprisonment in excess of six months or fine in excess of P200.00 as far as crimes enumerated or specified in Section 87(b)
of Repub­lic Act No. 296, known as the Judiciary Act of 1948, are concerned.^[1]

We, therefore, hold that the Court of First In­stance and the
municipal courts or city courts have concurrent original jurisdiction to try criminal cases
involving illegal possession of firearms.

WHEREFORE, the appealed orders of the Court of First
Instance of Iloilo, dated August 4, 1964 and August 20, 1964, are set aside,
and this case is ordered remanded to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo with
instructions to proceed with the trial of the case on the merits. No costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro,
Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

^[1] See People vs. Dalton, L-23539,
February 22, 1968; Esperat vs. Avila, et al., L-25922, June 13, 1967;
Pariñgit vs. Masakayan, L-16578, July 31, 1961; Villanueva vs.
Ortiz, L-15344, May 30, 1960; Niñarea, et al., vs. Veluz, 91 Phil. 473;
People vs. Colicio, 88, Phil., 196, and People vs. Palmon, 85
Phil. 350.