RODOLFO ANDICO, PETITIONER, VS. JUDGE AMADO G. ROAN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

The basis of this petition for prohibition and mandamus, dated September 14, 1966, was the failure
to institute an appeal in a criminal case to the proper judicial tribunal.^[1]
It is the contention of petitioner, as complainant, that upon conviction of the
accused, respondent Fidelino, for serious physical
injuries, by the Municipal Court of Manila, the matter should have been
elevated not to the Court of First Instance of Manila, as was done, but to the
Court of Appeals.

Respondent Fidelino, in an information
filed on July 30, 1964,
before respondent Judge Roan of the Municipal Court of Manila, was indicted for
the above offense, penalized by arresto mayor
in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period.  The aforesaid case was tried and decided on
the merits by respondent Judge Roan, the entire proceedings having been duly
recorded, stenographic notes of which were officially taken by the Court
stenographer.  The accused, respondent Fidelino, was found guilty as charged.  He was sentenced to six months of arresto mayor, the aforesaid decision having
been promulgated on March 16, 1966.^[2]
The accused, respondent Fidelino, appealed as noted
to the Court of First Instance of Manila.

The contention was advanced by petitioner that pursuant to
Section 37 of the Judiciary Act, as amended, specifically the last two
paragraphs thereof, the Municipal Court of Manila has concurrent jurisdiction
with the Court of First Instance of Manila over the offense charged, resulting
in the aforesaid decision of respondent Judge Roan being directly appealable to the Court of Appeals, the Court of First
Instance of Manila having no appellate jurisdiction.  Such a contention was over­ruled by the then
Judge Placido Ramos of the Court of First Instance of
Manila, to whom the case was assigned, a ruling affirmed by respondent Judge Conrado Vasquez.^[3]
On July 30, 1966,
petitioner filed with the Municipal Court of Manila a motion for the execution
of its aforesaid decision, on the ground that as it was directly appealable to the Court of Appeals, no legal appeal was
taken thereto by respondent Fidelino, resulting in
such decision having become final and executory.  Such motion was denied by respondent City
Judge Roan in an order dated the same day.^[4]

The point is raised that respondent Judge Vasquez of the Court of
First Instance of Manila acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction over the appeal interposed
by respondent Fidelino from the aforesaid decision of
respondent Judge Roan, who allegedly failed to comply with the performance of a
legal duty in refusing to execute the sentence promulgated by him, which had
become final.^[5]
Hence this petition for prohibition and mandamus.

The stand of petitioner is premised on the latest amendment to
Section 87 of the Judiciary Act.^[6]
As the law stands at present, judges of the peace and judges of municipal
courts of chartered cities possess original jurisdiction over all offenses,
except violation of election laws jurisdiction which the penalty provided by
law is imprisonment for not more than three (3) years or a fine of not more
than P3,000.00, or both such fine and imprison­ment.”^[7]
It is further provided in the same amendatory act:  “Justices of the peace in the capitals
of provinces and sub-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 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.”^[8]
Since the original jurisdiction as con­ferred in the Court of First Instance by
the Judiciary Act of 1948,^[9]
as far as criminal cases is concerned, namely, where the penalty provided by
law is imprisonment for more than six (6) months or a fine of more than
P200.00,^[10]
municipal courts of chartered cities as well as Courts of First Instance
possess concurrent original jurisdiction over all criminal offenses except
violations of election laws where the penalty provided by law is more than six
(6) months or a fine of more than P200.00, but not exceeding imprisonment for
not more than’ six (6) years or a fine of not more than P6,000.00 or both such
fine and imprisonment.

Under such circumstances, and in view of the explicit provision
of the latest amendatory act, to the effect that in all the cases where judges
of the municipal courts and Courts of First Instance have concurrent
jurisdiction as above pro­vided, which are to be tried and decided on the
merits by them with proceedings to be recorded, the “decision therein
shall be appealable direct to the Court of Appeals or
to the Supreme Court,”^[11]
the appeal in this particular criminal case, where respondent Fidelino was found guilty and penalized by six months of arresto mayor, so petitioner asserts, should
have been elevated to the Court of Appeals. 
It bears repeating that such is petitioner’s justification for the
allegation that respondent Judge Vasquez of the Court of First Instance of
Manila acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or at the very least with
grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the appeal to his court and that
respondent Judge Roan of the Municipal Court of Manila should have decreed the
execution of the sentence, which by virtue of the erroneous appeal, had become
final.

How did respondents, who in effect admitted the factual
allegations of the petition, seek to refute such a contention? Their answer
dated October 7, 1966, would fasten this inter­pretation on the above statutory
provisions: “In resume, respondents maintain that all offenses, except
violation of election laws, shall be within the original exclusive juris­diction
of city courts when the penalty provided is imprison­ment for not more than
three years or a fine of not more than three thousand pesos or both such fine
and imprisonment.  Like­wise, City Courts
shall have original concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance
over offenses in which the penalty provided is imprisonment for more than three
years or a fine of more than three thousand pesos but not to exceed six years
or a fine not exceeding six thousand pesos, in which case the proceedings in
the City Courts shall be recorded and appeals shall be made direct to the Court
of Appeals or the Supreme Court as the case may be.”^[12]
Inasmuch, according to the answer, as respondent Fidelino
was accused of a crime “punishable by imprisonment from four months and
one day to two years and four months, which needless to say, is less than three
years and following the abovestated exposition, the
same is within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the City Court of
Manila.  Therefore appeals therefrom should be made to the Court of First Instance of
Manila.”^[13]

Instead of being heard in an oral argument, both petitioner and
respondents submitted memoranda. 
Thereafter, in a supple­mental memorandum for petitioner, the attention
of this Court was invited to a recent decision, Esperat
v. Avila,^[14]
which to him is controlling.  As he
emphatically asserted: “It can therefore be said without fear of contradiction
that the present case is on all fours with the recently-decided Experat case.  In the
light thereof, the position taken by the petitioners should be upheld.”^[15]

Petitioner’s reliance on Esperat v. Avila
is not in vain.  It was there held by
this Court, speaking through Acting Chief Justice J.B.L. Reyes, that the
provisions of the Judiciary Act conferring the respective jurisdiction in
criminal cases on Courts of First Instance and municipal courts must be
considered together.  In the language of
the opinion: “Note that notwith­standing the various amendments received
by section 87, section 44(f) remained unaltered, thereby indicating the
intention of the legislators to retain the original jurisdiction of the court
of first instance in certain cases.  The
fact that the juris­diction of the municipal or city courts was enlarged in
virtue of the amendment of section 87(c), cannot be taken as a repeal or
withdrawal of the jurisdiction conferred on the court of first instance.  Not only is implied repeal disfavored by the
law, but also, it is a cardinal principle that a statute must be so construed
as to harmonize all apparent conflicts, and give effect to all its provisions
whenever possible.”

Nor, as the opinion continues, is there anything irrecon­cilable
between the above sections of the Judiciary Act.  Why it is so, is explained thus: “As
therein provided, the court of first instance was given original jurisdiction
over cases where the penalty prescribed by law is imprisonment for more than
6 months or fine of more than P200.00 the justices of the peace and
municipal or city courts of chartered cities, over cases where the penalty is
imprisonment for not more than 3 years, and fine of not more than
P3,000.00.  In other words, where the
prescribed penalty is imprisonment for more than 6 months, but not exceeding 3
years, or fine of more than P200.00 but not exceed­ing P3,000.00, the justice
of the peace or municipal court only has concurrent (and not exclusive)
original jurisdiction with the court of first instance.  And, it may be stated that this concurrent
jurisdiction between the inferior courts and the court of first instance was
not provided for the first time in Republic Act No. 3828.  Under Republic Act No. 2613, crimes the
penalties for which do not exceed 6 years, or fine for not more than P3,000.00,
were specifically placed within the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace
and municipal courts, concurrent with the court of first instance.”

From which the conclusion emerges, again to quote from the
opinion: “It follows, therefore, that the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the justice of the peace and municipal courts is confined only
to cases where the prescribed penalty is imprison­ment for 6 months or less,
or fine of P200.00 or less, whereas, the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the court of first instance covers cases where the penalty is
incarceration for more than 3 years (or 6 years in the case of city courts and
municipal courts in provincial capitals), or fine for more than P3,000.00 (or
P6,000.00 in proper cases), or both such imprisonment and fine.  Between these exclusive jurisdictions lies a
zone where the jurisdiction is concurrent. 
This is the proper construction to be placed on the provisions involved herein,
regardless of what may have been the prior rulings on the matter.  Needless to state, in an appropriate case
where the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace, municipal or city court is
concurrent with that of the court of first instance, appeal from the decision
of the former tribunal lies directly to the Court of Appeals, or the Supreme
Court.”

On the controlling authority of Esperat
v. Avila, which speaks in
categorical language, it is indisputable that respon­dent Judge Vasquez of the
Court of First Instance of Manila, in taking cognizance of the appeal and
refusing to elevate this case to the Court of Appeals, acted without
jurisdiction.  No mandamus lies as
against respondent Judge Roan of Municipal Court of Manila, for at this stage
the judgment is not yet final and executory, the
appeal having been perfected in due time.

WHEREFORE, the petition for prohibition against respondent
Judge Vasquez is granted, and he is hereby ordered to elevate the records of
the case to the Court of Appeals, which has juris­diction over the appeal.  The petition for mandamus against respondent
Judge Roan of Municipal Court of Manila for the execution of the sentence
imposed on respondent Fidelino, now properly the
subject of an appeal, is hereby denied. 
With costs against respondent Fidelino.

Reyes, J.B.L., (Acting C.J.), Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, and Angeles, JJ., concur.

^[1]
People v. Fidelino y Tecson,
Criminal Case No. F-070485, par. 1,Petition.

^[2]
Pars. 2 to 5, Petition.

^[3]
Pars. 6 and 7, Petition.

^[4]
Par. 8, Petition.

^[5]
Par. 9, Petition.

^[6]
Republic Act No. 3828, which took effect upon its approval on June 22, 1963.

^[7]
Section 87(c), 1st par. as amended by Republic Act No. 3828.

^[8] Section
87(c), penultimate par. as amended by Republic Act No. 3828.

^[9]
Republic Act No. 296.

^[10]
Section 44(f).

^[11]
Section 87(c), last par. as amended by Republic Act No. 3828.

^[12]
Answer of respondents, p. 6.

^[13] Id.,
p. 7.

^[14]
L-25922, June 30, 1967.

^[15]
Supplemental Memorandum for Petitioner, p. 4.