G.R. No. L-25942. May 28, 1968
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. FELIX FERNANDO, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
ANGELES, J.:
The Government has taken this appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija dismissing for lack
of jurisdiction a charge for grave threats filed by one Marina David against
Felix Fernando.
The facts are not in dispute and the only issue posed is whether
the said court has original jurisdiction to try the said case for grave threats
which carries a penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding
P500.00.[1]
Basis for the dismissal is that, in the opinion of the trial
court, relying on the amendment to section 87(c) of the Judiciary Act,
“the entire range of penalty of arresto mayor,
or in other words, the maximum term of imprisonment provided by law for the
offense, does not reach the minimum limit of the jurisdiction of the Court of
First Instance.”
The appellant contends, on the other hand, that, despite the
amendment to section 87(c), and because the
existing provision of section 44(f) of the Judiciary Act, the crime charged
falls within the concurrent jurisdiction of the inferior courts and courts of
first instance.
The appeal is well taken.
An analytic study of the existing provisions of the law pertinent to the concurrent jurisdiction of the courts of first
instance and municipal courts was first made in the case of Esperat
vs. Hon. Avila, G.R. No. L-25922, June
30, 1967,[2]
the ruling of which We find to be controlling here. In that case, the conclusion was made that –
“x x x 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. x x x.”
Such an inference has been reached from a
joint construction of section 44(f) of the Judiciary Act, the provision
governing the original jurisdiction of courts of first instance, which has never
been amended; and section 87(c) of the same Act, governing that of the inferior
courts and which, on the other hand, has
received amendments. Said
provisions are hereunder quoted:
“Sec. 44. Original
jurisdiction.- Court of First Instance shall have original jurisdiction:
x x 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;”
“Sec. 87. Original
jurisdiction to try criminal cases.- Justices of the peace and municipal
courts of chartered cities shall have original jurisdiction over:
x x x x x
“(b) All
offenses in which the penalty
provided by law is imprisonment for not more than six months, or a fine of not
more than two hundred pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment;
x x x x x[3]
“Sec. 87. Original jurisdiction to try criminal
cases.- Municipal judges and judges of city courts of chartered cities
shall have original jurisdiction over:
“(c) Except violations of election laws all other offenses in
which the penalty provided by law is imprisonment for not more than three
years, or a fine of not more than three thousand pesos, or both such fine and
imprisonment.
x x x x x[4]
Since, notwithstanding
the broadening of the original jurisdiction of municipal and city courts, that
of the courts of first instance has remained unaltered, there is left an area
where the jurisdictions of these courts seem to overlap and, therefore, are
concurrent. But, as explained by Justice
Jose B.L. Reyes in the Esperat case, supra,
there is nothing irreconcilable between the two provisions, 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 as 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 (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 3828. Under Republic Act 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.”
Upon this
enlightening authority, there is no doubt that the crime of grave threats,
punishable, as aforesaid, by arresto mayor and fine
not exceeding P500.00, falls under the concurrent jurisdiction of the municipal
court and the court of first instance, and which ever court first takes
cognizance over it, acquires jurisdiction thereof exclusive of the other.
Thus, We hold that the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija has jurisdiction over
the charge filed by the complainant in the instant case.
WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal is hereby set aside, and
let the case be remanded to the lower court
for trial on the merits. Order
reversed.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, and
Castro, JJ., concur.
[1]
Par. 2, article 282, Revised Penal Code.
[2]
Cited in the case of Andico vs. Roan, G.R. No.
L-26563, April 16, 1968.
[3]
Sec. 87(b), now 87(c), in its original form.
[4]
As amended by Republic Act 3828.