PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. FELIX FERNANDO, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

People versus Fernando

The Case

This is People of the Philippines versus Felix Fernando, a criminal case that reached the Supreme Court on a pure question of jurisdiction. The Government appealed from an order of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija dismissing, for lack of jurisdiction, a charge of grave threats filed by one Marina David against Felix Fernando. The case matters because it fixes the boundary lines between the criminal jurisdiction of the inferior courts and that of the courts of first instance, and it identifies the zone in which those jurisdictions are concurrent.

Procedural History

The prosecution filed a charge for grave threats against Felix Fernando before the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija. The trial court dismissed the charge for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that the entire range of the penalty of arresto mayor does not reach the minimum limit of the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. The Government, as plaintiff, took an appeal from that order of dismissal. The appeal was elevated to the Supreme Court, which reversed the dismissal and remanded the case to the lower court for trial on the merits.

Facts

Marina David filed a charge for grave threats against Felix Fernando. The facts are not in dispute. The only question posed is whether the Court of First Instance has original jurisdiction to try a case for grave threats, which carries a penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.

The trial court dismissed the charge. It relied on the amendment to Section 87(c) of the Judiciary Act and held that the entire range of the penalty of arresto mayor, 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 contended, on the other hand, that despite the amendment to Section 87(c), and because of the existing provision of Section 44(f) of the Judiciary Act, the crime charged falls within the concurrent jurisdiction of the inferior courts and the courts of first instance. The Supreme Court agreed that the appeal is well taken.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija has original jurisdiction to try a charge for grave threats punishable by arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.
• Whether or not, despite the amendment to Section 87(c) of the Judiciary Act, the crime charged falls within the concurrent jurisdiction of the inferior courts and the courts of first instance.

Applicable Provisions

Section 44(f) of the Judiciary Act, which governs the original jurisdiction of courts of first instance and which has never been amended, provides:

Section 44. Original jurisdiction. Court of First Instance shall have original jurisdiction: (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.

This provision sets the floor of the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, and the crime charged falls above that floor.

Section 87(b) of the Judiciary Act, in its original form, provided:

Section 87. Original jurisdiction to try criminal cases. Justices of the peace and municipal courts of chartered cities shall have original jurisdiction over: (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.

This is the original, narrow grant to the inferior courts, which the amendment later broadened.

Section 87(c) of the same Act, as amended by Republic Act 3828, provides:

Section 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.

This amendment broadened the jurisdiction of the inferior courts without any corresponding change in the jurisdiction of the courts of first instance, and it is the source of the overlap the Court resolves.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija has jurisdiction over the charge filed by the complainant. The appeal is well taken.

On the second issue, the Court held that the crime of grave threats, punishable by arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, falls under the concurrent jurisdiction of the municipal court and the court of first instance, and whichever court first takes cognizance over it acquires jurisdiction thereof exclusive of the other.

The Court rested its ruling on its earlier decision in Esperat versus Avila, which it found controlling. In that case the Court concluded:

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 200 pesos 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 3,000 pesos or 6,000 pesos in proper cases or both such imprisonment and fine. Between these exclusive jurisdictions lies a zone where the jurisdiction is concurrent.

The Court explained that this inference was reached from a joint construction of Section 44(f), which has never been amended, and Section 87(c), which has received amendments. Since the original jurisdiction of municipal and city courts was broadened while that of the courts of first instance remained unaltered, there is left an area where the jurisdictions of these courts seem to overlap and therefore are concurrent. As explained in the Esperat case:

where the prescribed penalty is imprisonment for more than 6 months, but not exceeding 3 years, or fine of more than 200 pesos but not exceeding 3,000 pesos, the justice of the peace or municipal court only has concurrent not exclusive original jurisdiction with the court of first instance.

There is, the Court said, nothing irreconcilable between the two provisions.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. The exclusive original jurisdiction of the justice of the peace and municipal courts is confined to cases where the prescribed penalty is imprisonment for six months or less, or a fine of 200 pesos or less. The exclusive original jurisdiction of the court of first instance covers cases where the penalty is imprisonment for more than three years, or a fine of more than 3,000 pesos, or both. Between these exclusive jurisdictions lies a zone where jurisdiction is concurrent. Where the prescribed penalty is imprisonment for more than six months but not exceeding three years, or a fine of more than 200 pesos but not exceeding 3,000 pesos, the inferior court has concurrent, not exclusive, original jurisdiction with the court of first instance. Whichever court first takes cognizance of the case acquires jurisdiction exclusive of the other. These rules are drawn from the joint construction of Section 44(f) and Section 87(c) of the Judiciary Act.

Disposition

The order of dismissal was set aside, and the case was remanded to the lower court for trial on the merits. The Government won the appeal.

Remember This

Between the exclusive jurisdiction of the inferior courts and the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of first instance lies a zone of concurrent jurisdiction, and whichever court first takes cognizance acquires jurisdiction exclusive of the other. Examiners use this case to test the overlap created when the jurisdiction of the inferior courts was broadened by amendment while that of the courts of first instance was left unaltered.