THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ICASIANO C. CUELLO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

On 20 April 1955 Icasiano Cuello was charged in the Court of First
Instance of Manila with a violation of paragraph 2, article 277, of the
Revised Penal Code, in an information couched in the following terms:

The undersigned accuses Icasiano Cuello of a violation of Article 277, Revised penal Code, committed as follows:

That in, about and during the period from 1950 and continuously up to
the present, in the City of Manila, Philippines the said accused, being
then the legitimate father of Armando, 13 years of age and Reynato, 12
years of age, all surname Cuello, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously neglect his aforesaid children by not giving
them the education which his station in life requires and financial
condition permits.

Contrary to Law. (Crim. Case No. 31075.)

Upon arraignment, the defendant, who waived his right to be assisted by
counsel, entered a plea of not guilty. The Court proceeded with the
trial of the case during which the prosecution presented its evidence
both oral and documentary and the defendant, assisted by counsel,
cross-examined the witnesses for the prosecution. After the prosecution
had presented its evidence, counsel for the defendant prayed that
without waiving his right to present evidence in his behalf, the
information be dismissed on the ground that the evidence presented does
not prove the offense charged and that he be granted a period of five
days within which to file a memorandum in support of his motion. The
Court granted him five days within which to file his memorandum (p. 7,
t.s.n., session of 7 December 1955). On 13 December 1955 the defendant
filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that the Court
has no jurisdiction of the case and that the facts alleged in the
information and the evidence presented do not constitute a violation of
article 277 of the Revised Penal Code. According to the defendant, as
the penalty imposed for violation of article 277 of the Revised Penal
Code is arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding P500, pursuant to section 87(b),
Republic Act No. 296, it is the municipal court that has jurisdiction
of the case. On 21 February 1956 the Court denied the defendant’s
motion to quash. On 20 March 1956 the defendant filed a “petition
requesting permission to file a second motion to dismiss,” with the
motion attached thereto, and on 22 March 1956 the prosecution, an
opposition thereto. On the day set by the Court for reception of his
evidence (24 March 1956), the defendant waived his right to present it.
Whereupon the Court granted the parties fifteen days within which to
submit their respective memoranda. On 4 April 1956 the defendant filed
his memorandum. The prosecution did not file any. On 25 July 1956 the
Court rendered judgement finding the defendant guilty as charged and
sentencing him to suffer two (2) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor,
to pay a fine of P200, with subsidy imprisonment in case of insolvency
not to exceed one-third of the principal penalty, the accessories of
the law, and to pay the costs. The defendant has appealed. On 29 March
1958, after the parties had filed their respective briefs, the Court of
Appeals certified the case to this Court on the ground that the
appellant again had raised the question of jurisdiction.

Section 43 (f),
Republic Act No. 296, as amended, provides that Courts of First
Instance have original jurisdiction of “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, and section 87 (b)
of the same Act provides that justice of the Peace and Municipal Courts
have original jurisdiction over “All offenses in which the penalty
provided by law is imprisonment for more than six months, or a fine of not more than two hundred pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment.”^[1]
(Italics supplied) The penalty imposed by article 277 of the Revised
Penal Code “upon the parents who shall neglect their children by not
giving them the education which their station in life require and
financial condition permit,” is arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding P500. The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor is one month and one day to six months.^[2]
The jurisdiction of courts in criminal offenses is determined by the
penalty imposed for an offense as provided- by the statue, and not by
what may be meted out to the offended after trial.

As
already pointed out, the penalty imposed by article 277 of the Revised
Penal Code for the offense with which the appellant is charged is arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding P500. It is not only arresto mayor or merely a fine not exceeding P500; it is both imprisonment and fine. In Angeles vs.
Jose (96 Phil., 151), 50 Off. Gaz. 5764-5765, this Court held that
where the fine fixed by law is beyond the jurisdiction of the Municipal
Court and within that of the Court of First Instance, the latter Court
is the one that has original jurisdiction of the case. The facts of
that case are: Domingo Mejia y Soriano was charged before the Court of
First Instance of Manila with the crime of damage to property in the
sum of P645.22 and less serious physical injuries through reckless
negligence, committed in one single act. After preliminary
investigation, upon motion of the defendant, the Court dismissed the
case for lack of jurisdiction because the penalty prescribed for the
offense is only arresto mayor in its minimum and medium period.
Brought by the City Fiscal on certiorari to test the legality of the
dismissal on the issue of jurisdiction, this Court said:

“The above-quoted provision^[1]
simply means that if there is only damage to property the amount fixed
therein shall be imposed, but if there are also physical injuries there
should be an additional penalty for the latter. The information cannot
be split into two; one for the physical injuries, and another for the
damage to property for both the injuries and the damage committed were
caused by one single act of the defendant and constitute what may be
called a complex crime of physical injuries and damage to property. It
is clear that the fine fixed by law in this case is beyond the
jurisdiction of the municipal court and within that of the court of
first instance.”

In like manner, since the
penalty imposed for violation of article 277 of the Revised Penal Code
is both imprisonment and fine, the penalty cannot be split into two,
the Municipal Court, which has jurisdiction of an offense in which the
penalty provided by law is imprisonment for not more than six months,
imposing imprisonment and the Court of First Instance, which has
jurisdiction of a case in which the penalty imposed by law is a fine of
more than P200, imposing the fine. Consequently, the Court of First
Instance has jurisdiction of the case and correctly took cognizance of
it.

The latter case of People vs. Ocampo, 100
Phil., 513; 53 Off. Gaz. 612-614, relied upon by the appellant, is not
applicable. There the defendant was charged in the Court of First
Instance of Manila with the crime of attempted theft involving the sum
of P202 in cash. Pursuant to article 309 of the Revised Penal Code, if
the value of the property stolen is more than P200 but does not exceed
P2,000, the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods shall be imposed. The offense charged being only
attempted theft, the penalty that should be imposed is two degrees
lower than the penalty prescribed for a consummated offense, which, in
this case, is destierro in its maximum period to arresto mayor
in its minimum period. This Court held that the Municipal Court and not
the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction of the case. The case at
bar is different from this case relied upon by the appellant. Here the
penalty for the offense charged is arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding P500. There it is destierro in its maximum period to arresto mayor in its minimum period. Clearly, the latter case is not within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.

As the question of jurisdiction raised by the appellant is so
unsubstantial to bring his appeal within the appellate jurisdiction of
this Court on the one hand, and the review of the judgment appealed
from requires revision and determination of facts as found by the trial
Court, on the other, as indicated or revealed in the six assignment of
errors claimed by the appellant to have been committed by the trial
Court, to wit:

Al no declarar que el hecho
de que cuando la denunciante entrego los menores Armando y Renato
Cuello sin al consentimiento del apelanto como padre al “Boys Town”,
ella infringio las disposiciones del articulo 277 del Codigo Penal
Revisado.

Al declarar que durante la estancia del apelante
en Okinawa, solo ha enviado a la denunciante la suma de cincuenta
($50.00) dollar, equivalente a cien (P100.00) pesos y un (1) reloj de
pulsera y al volver en el pais solo entrego la suma de cuarenta pesos
(P40.00).

Al declarar que el apelante a su vuelta en el pais construyo una casa para Prescila Gloria.

Al declarar que el apelante abandono a sus hijos y es responsable por
dicho abandono de acuerdo con las diposiciones del articulo 277 del
Codigo Penal Revisado.

El condenar al apelante a la pena
de dos (2) mese y un (1) dia de arresto mayor, y una multa de
doscientos pesos (P200.00) con las cortas. (pp. b to c, brief for the
appellants.)

the appeal taken by the
appellant is remanded to the Court of Appeals for determination
pursuant to the provisions of Section 31, in connection with sections
17 and 29, Republic Act No. 296, as amended.

Bengzon, Acting C. J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.

---

^[1]
As amended by Republic Act No. 2613, which took effect on 1 August
1959, section 87 (c) provides: “All other offenses except violation of
election laws 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.” The amendment, however, is not
decisive of the case.

^[2] Article 27, Revised Penal Code.

^[1]
Referring to paragraph 3, article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, which
provides: “When the execution of the act covered by this article shall
have only resulted in damage to the property of another, the offender
shall be punished by a fine ranging from an amount equal to the value
of said damage to three times such value, but which shall in no case be
less than P25.”