SOFRONIO ALCANTARA, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. THE HONORABLE MARCELO VALDEHUEZA IN HIS CAPACITY AS JUDGE OF BRANCH 2 OF THE CITY COURT OF CAGAYAN DE ORO, AND FRANCISCO RABANES IN…

Under attack is the
jurisdiction of the City Court of Cagayan de Oro to take cognizance of a
criminal case for theft of certain articles with a total value of P438.20,
lodged with said court against petitioner.^[1]

The question before us
came about because of petitioner’s motion to quash the information in the
criminal case just mentioned, filed with the City Court, upon the ground of
lack of jurisdiction.  His motion having
been denied, petitioner went to the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental on prohibition.^[2] Petitioner
was there again thwarted.  He took his
case direct to this Court.

Petitioner avers that the
jurisdiction of the City Court of Cagayan de Oro to try the theft case aforesaid is confined
strictly within the limits of Section 87(b)(3) of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as
amended, providing that municipal judges and judges of city courts “shall
have original jurisdiction over: 
x x x (b) All
criminal cases arising under the laws relating to:  x x x (3) Larceny, embezzlement and estafa
where the amount of money or property stolen, embezzled, or otherwise involved,
does not exceed the sum or value of two hundred pesos.”

Petitioner’s argument overlooks the penultimate paragraph of
Section 87 of the same law, as amended, which reads:  “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, and in the absence of
the district judge, shall have like jurisdiction within the province as the
Court of First Instance to hear applications for bail.” To be recalled is
that the penalty for theft of property which is worth more than 200 pesos but
whose value does not exceed 6,000 pesos (here it is P438.20) is, by Article
309(3), Revised Penal Code, prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.

Going by the spirit of Section 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948,
as amended, first by Republic Act 2613,^[3]
and then by Republic Act 3828, it is quite clear that it has been the purpose
of Congress to expand the jurisdiction of city courts and municipal
courts.  So it is, that when the
penultimate paragraph of Section 87 just
transcribed employed the phrase “shall have like jurisdiction
as the Court of First Instance to try parties charged with an
offense”, the congressional will written in so expressive a language is
that so long as the penalty prescribed for an offense committed within the
jurisdiction of a city court “does not exceed prision
correccional or imprisonment for not more than
six years or fine not exceeding six thousand pesos or both”, said city court
holds jurisdiction concurrent with the Court of First Instance.^[4]

Our view of the law is
tremendously bolstered by the last paragraph of Section 87 of the Judiciary Act
of 1948, also as amended by Republic Act 3828, which provides that “[a]ll cases filed under the next preceding paragraph with
municipal judges of capitals and city court judges shall be tried and decided on
the merits by the respective municipal judges or city judges”,
and that “[p]roceedings had shall be recorded
and decisions therein shall be appealable
direct to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, as the case may be.”^[5] The jurisdiction then of the City Court of Cagayan de Oro is unassailable.

FOR THE REASONS GIVEN, the order of the Court of First Instance of
Misamis Oriental denying petitioner’s petition for
prohibition is hereby affirmed.

Costs
against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Castro,
Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee, and Barredo, JJ., concur.

Zaldivar, J., on official leave.

^[1]
Criminal Case 13814.

^[2]
Civil Case 2840, entitled “Sofronio Alcantara, Petitioner, versus The Honorable Marcelo Valdehueza, et al., Respondents.”

^[3]
The penultimate paragraph of Section 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as
amended by Republic Act 2613, then read: 
“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, and in the
absence of the district judge, shall have like jurisdiction within the province
as the Court of First Instance to hear application for bail.”

^[4]
Balite vs. People (1966), 18 SCRA 280, 287.

^[5]
Emphasis supplied.  See:  People vs. Laba,
L-28022, July  30, 1969 and cases therein
cited.