PABLO DE GUZMAN, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENT.

Petitioner faced five (5) charges of theft of five (5) carabaos each priced, according to the criminal complaints,
at P200.00.  The Justice of the Peace
Court (now Municipal Court) of Angat, Bulacan, found him guilty, and sentenced him in each of the
five cases.

The Court of First Instance of Bulacan,
on appeal^[1]
and after joint trial de novo, similarly found him guilty, and
sentenced him in each of the five cases to an indeterminate penalty ranging
from two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision
correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years
and one (1) day of prision mayor, as
maximum, and to pay the costs.^[2]

He went to the Court of Appeals.^[3]
Again, he was found guilty.  But with
this difference:  The Court of Appeals
found that the five carabaos – with a total value of
P930.00 (by the evidence, one of which is only worth P130.00) – were missed
“while grazing fully in a common pasture”; and that said carabaos “were all loaded at Binagbag
and presumably previously gathered at that point.” The Court of Appeals
correctly concluded that there was “one criminal act”, and that
petitioner “cannot be held guilty of separate offenses.” The Court of
Appeals accordingly pronounced petitioner liable for “only one crime of
theft of large cattle”, and sentenced him to an indeterminate prison term
ranging “from four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional
as minimum, to nine (9) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum.”

Petitioner moved to reconsider the judgment.  He claims lack of original jurisdiction in
the justice of the peace court and lack of jurisdiction in the two appellate
courts.  The Court of Appeals rejected
the reconsideration sought.

Seasonably, petitioner came to this Court on appeal by
certiorari.  Taking the cue from the
Court of Appeals, he avers that solely one crime was committed, and that the
total value of the five carabaos, the subject
thereof, is P930.00.  His syllogism:  The Justice of the Peace Court of Angat, Bulacan, did not have
original jurisdiction to try the case because of the value of the property
stolen; therefore, the Court of First Instance did not
have appellate jurisdiction; and, accordingly, the Court of Appeals was bereft
of power to sentence him.

Cast in legal setting, the problem is this:  Is the Court of Appeals’ decision null and void
for want of jurisdiction?

Unquestionably, the Justice of the Peace Court in Angat – which originally tried and sentenced petitioner –
did not have jurisdiction.  We are not
now dealing with the five separate cases of theft.  For, as the Court of Appeals found, there was
only one crime of theft – which, even at inception, should have been charged
petitioner – and the aggregate value of the five stolen carabaos
is P930.00.  And, the statutory ceiling
for justice of the peace courts, for jurisdictional purposes, is gauged in
terms of the worth of property stolen, which “does not exceed the sum or
value of two hundred pesos.”^[4]

But, he went to the Court of First Instance.  There, he pleaded not guilty, submitted to
trial de novo, heard the judgment condemning him in each of the
five separate cases.  All along, he never
raised his voice in protest.  He never
breathed a word in challenge of that court’s appellate jurisdiction.

Where, as in the case before us, defendant is tried by an inferior
court and sentenced therein for a crime beyond that court’s
jurisdictional boundaries, two courses of action are open to him in the court
of first instance, on appeal.  First.  He may
assail the appellate jurisdiction of the court and seek to nullify the
proceedings in, and judgment of, the inferior court.  Such jurisdictional objection he must
assert.  And this, for the potent reason
that should the court of first instance find the same to be well-founded, then
the only jurisdiction acquired by the latter court is to dismiss the
case.  Second.  Defendant has the other choice of voluntarily
submitting himself to the court of first instance in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction.  He is deemed to
have thus submitted himself if he does not object to the appellate jurisdiction
of the court.  In which case, no error of
jurisdictional dimensions may be tagged to this court.  This is a rule of ancient respectability^[5]
and has earned judicial acceptance ever since.^[6]

The same rule obtains in civil cases.  The statute on this point^[7]
finds copious jurisprudential support.^[8]

Measured by the legal yardstick just delineated, here is the
situation before us:  If we take the five
cases as they were tried before the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, easily said court had original jurisdiction
to try each and everyone of them.^[9]
Reason therefor is that the penalty imposable for the
crime of theft of large cattle, where, as here, the value of each carabao is over P50.00 and does not exceed P200.00, is well
beyond the statutory minimum of six months’ imprisonment.^[10]
Treated again as five separate cases, the jurisdiction of the Court of First
Instance of Bulacan is concurrent with that of
the Justice of the Peace Court of Angat.^[11]

However, as stated, the Court of Appeals found as a fact, that
only one crime covering the theft of all the five carabaos
was committed by petitioner and that the aggregate value thereof is
P930.00.  Accordingly, the single case,
as it was ultimately decided by the Court of Appeals, falls exclusively
within the jurisdictional area allocated to the Court of First Instance of Bulacan.

Since the Court of First Instance of Bulacan
had jurisdiction, and petitioner submitted to the original exercise thereof by
that court without objection, then he was properly convicted therein.  And the Court of Appeals acquired appellate
jurisdiction.^[12]
The judgment of the Court of Appeals stands.

Upon the foregoing considerations, we resolve to dismiss
the appeal by certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

SO ORDERED.

Reyes, JBL, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Ruiz Castro,
Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J., and Dizon, J., on official leave.

^[1]
Criminal Case 3915-3919, “People of the Philippines,
plaintiff, vs. Pablo de Guzman, accused.”

^[2]
No provision for indemnity was made because the animals were recovered.

^[3]
CA-G.R. 04447-50-CR, “People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee vs. Pablo de
Guzman, defendant-appellant.

^[4]
Sec. 87, par. (b), subpar.
(3), R.A. 296, as amended.

^[5]
U.S. vs.
Ang Suyco, 17 Phil. 92,
93-94; Carroll vs. Paredes, 17 Phil. 94,
100-101. Cf. U.S.
vs. Bernardo, 19 Phil. 265, 269-272.

^[6]
People vs. Celis, 101 Phil. 586, 589-590.

^[7]
Section 11, Rule 40, of the New Rules of Court, reads:

“SEC. 11.
Lack of jurisdiction. – A case
tried by an inferior court without jurisdiction over the subject matter shall
be dis­missed on appeal by the Court of First Instance.  But instead of dismissing the case, the Court
of First Instance in the exer­cise of its original jurisdiction, may try the
case on the merits if the parties therein file their pleadings and go to the
trial without any objection to such jurisdiction.”

^[8]
Canaveral vs. Encarnacion, 95 Phil. 848, 852; Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. vs. Lejano,
58 C.G. No. 17, pp. 3276, 3277-3278; Aureo vs.
Aureo, 56 C.G. No. 42, pp. 6465, 6468; Guitarte vs. Sabaco, 60
O.G. No. 27, pp. 3894, 3895; Angeles vs. Guevara, 61 O.G. No. 7, pp.
864, 866-867; Evangelista vs. Reyes, L-20416, January 30, 1964. Cf.
Geraldez vs. Rodriguez, L-17064, November 9,
1964; General Insurance and Surety Corporation vs. Castelo,
L-19330, April 30, 1965; Ganancial vs. Atillo, L-20830, June 28, 1965.

^[9]
Section 44 (f), Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, reads:

“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

^[10]  Article 310, in relation to
Article 309, par. 4, Revised Penal Code.

^[11]
Section 87, par. (b), subpar.
(3), Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, reads:

“SEC. 87. Original jurisdiction
to try criminal cases. – Municipal judges
and judges of city 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

(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;

x          x          x”

^[12]
See Sections 29 and 31, in relation to Section 17, Judiciary Act of
1948, as amended.