THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ILDEFONSO BRECINIO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This appeal by Ildefonso Brecinio involves a
question of law only. The facts are simple.

Ildefonso Brecinio was
accused of stealing a male carabao worth P150.00 in
the Justice of the Peace Court of Pili, Camarines Sur. The jurisdiction
of the court to try Brecinio was questioned. In Brecinio vs. Papica,
120 Phil. 1141 (1964), this Court held that the Justice of the Peace Court of
Pill had concurrent original jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur to try and decide
the case pursuant to Section 87 of the Judiciary Act.

Brecinio was tried and convicted by the Justice of
the Peace Court of Pili. The court, however, did not
record its proceedings. Brecinio appealed his
conviction to the Court of First Instance of Camarines
Sur which had concurrent jurisdiction over the case.
The CFI said that the appeal should have been taken directly to the Court of
Appeals but it tried the case nonetheless on the following note:

“However, the appellate jurisdiction of this Court was not
questioned by the accused or by the prosecution. This being so, it presupposes
that the parties agreed to the exercise by this Court of its original
concurrent jurisdiction over the case. We take cognizance of the present case
in the exercise of such jurisdiction.”

After trial where both
testimonial and documentary evidence were received, the CFI rendered the
following judgment:

“WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused, Ildefonso
Brecinio guilty of the crime of theft of large cattle
beyond reasonable doubt and hereby sentences
him to suffer an imprisonment of not less than two (2) years, four (4) months
and one (1) day of prision correctional to not more
than eight (8) years of prision mayor and to pay the
cost of the suit. The carabao having been recovered,
no in­demnity shall be paid by the accused.”

The judgment was
promulgated on July 24, 1968, and on the same day Brecinio
filed a notice of appeal.

The appellant makes the following assignment of errors:

“I. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ERRED IN TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THIS CASE IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS ORIGINAL
CONCURRENT JURISDICTION, INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF PILI,
CAPITAL OF CAMARINES SUR, HAS ALREADY TRIED THE CASE AND IN FACT CONVICTED THE
ACCUSED, ALSO IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS CONCURRENT JURISDICTION, ON THE FLIMSY
GROUND THAT THE PARTIES DID NOT OBJECT TO SAID JURISDICTION;

“II. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED ANEW, AFTER HE WAS ALREADY CONVICTED BY THE
MUNICIPAL COURT, WHICH CONVICTION BY THE MUNICIPAL COURT IS TOTALLY VOID
BECAUSE THE PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT RECORDED, WHEN PURSUANT TO LAW, THE EVIDENCE
SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECORDED CONSEQUENTLY THE ACCUSED IS PLACED IN DOUBLE
JEOPARDY.”

The petitory paragraph reads:

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, it is respectfully
prayed that the proceedings of the Municipal Court, as well as that of the
Court of First Instance, be declared null and void and that, the complaint or
information against the accused, be
ordered dismissed and for any other relief or reliefs
which are just and meet.”

It should be stated that
neither of the errors assigned is well taken.

A judgment of conviction
by a justice of the peace court in the exercise of its concurrent jurisdiction
should be appealed directly to the Court of Appeals, not to the Court of First
Instance. (Esperat vs. Avila, L-25922,
June 30, 1967, 20 SCRA 596.) But Brecinio’s
conviction could not have been appealed to the Court of Appeals for the
following reasons:

1. The proceedings in the Justice of the Peace Court were not
recorded. Hence, there was nothing which the Court of Appeals could have
reviewed.

2. But more importantly, the proceedings in the Justice of the
Peace Court were void for lack of record. In Aquino
vs. Estenzo, L-20791, May 19, 1965, 14 SCRA, this
Court held:

“We hold that the proceedings in the City Court of Ormoc City in Criminal Case No. 5640 was a nullity, not
because the City Court had no jurisdiction
to try the case but because the requirement of the law that the proceedings be
recorded was not complied with. When it was provided in Sec. 87(c) of Rep. Act
296, as amended by Rep. Act 2613, that the city courts of chartered cities have
like jurisdiction as the Court of First Instance to try parties charged with an
offense in which the penalty provided by law does not exceed prision correccional
or imprisonment for not more than six years or fine not exceeding P3, 000.00 or
both, the city court thereby acts as a Court of First Instance and its
decisions are appealable directly to the Court of
Appeals or to the Supreme Court, as the case may be. When the city court tries
cases of this nature and it acts as a Court of First Instance, it must perforce
act as a court of record. The very law itself provides that in the exercise of
this juris­diction by the municipal courts of provincial capitals and by city
courts the proceedings must be recorded. Certainly, the decisions of the city
courts or of the municipal courts of provincial capitals in the exercise of
this jurisdiction are similar to decisions of the Court of First Instance, and
their decisions cannot be appealed to the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme
Court, as the case may be, if there are no records of their
proceedings. When a city court, or the municipal court of provincial capitals,
does not record its proceedings in the trial of a case in the exercise of its
jurisdiction under Sec. 87(c) of the Republic Act 296, as amended, then it does
not exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with law and, therefore, the
proceedings had before it are null and void.” (At pp. 23-24.)

Where the proceedings in
the Justice of the Peace Court are null and void, as in this case, it was
correct and proper for the Provincial Fiscal to file an information, again as
in this case, in the Court of First Instance and for the latter court to take
cognizance, of the case in the exercise of its original not appellate
jurisdiction. (Aquino vs. Estenzo, supra.)

Since the appellant himself admits in his second assignment of
error that the proceedings in the Justice of the Peace Court were void, it is
impossible, not simply difficult, to understand his claim that he was placed in
double jeopardy when he was tried and convicted in the Court of First Instance.
Double jeopardy requires, among other things, valid previous proceedings.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed. Let the
records of this case be returned to the court a quo where Ildefonso Brecinio may manifest
within fifteen (15) days from notice if he desires to appeal to the
Intermediate Appellate Court. Absent such manifestation, the judgment against
him shall be immediately executory. Costs against the
appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr.,
Guerrero, and Escolin,
JJ., concur.

De Castro, J., on sick leave.