THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. PEDRO DALTON, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

Appeal by the State from orders of the Court of First Instance of
Iloilo, in its Criminal Case No. 10328, People vs. Dalton,
dis­missing the information and case filed therein, for alleged lack of
jurisdiction, and thereafter refusing to reconsider.

The information charged the accused with the crime of grave
coercion, as described in paragraph 1, Article 286, of the Revised Penal
Code.  Because the penalty provided is arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding
P500.00 (art. cit.) Judge Valerio Rovira,
of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, held that his court had no
jurisdiction and that the proper tribunal was the Municipal Court of Estancia,
Iloilo, where the crime was allegedly committed, invoking in support section
87, paragraph 3, R. A. 296, as amended by R. A. 3828, vesting Municipal Courts
with original jurisdiction over offenses penalized with no more than 3 years or
fine not exceeding P3,000.00 or both.  Reconsideration was denied, and the Fiscal
appealed.

The orders under appeal are erroneous.  This Court has repeatedly held that because
section 44 of the Judiciary Act, (vesting in Courts of First Instance original
jurisdiction over offenses penalized by law with imprisonment in excess of 6
months imprisonment or fine more thee P200.00) has been left unaltered, the
enlargement of the former jurisdiction of Municipal Courts by R. A. 3828 as
above stated, has resulted in concurrent jurisdiction of both Courts
over crimes penalized with imprisonment in excess of six months but not beyond
3 years, and fine exceeding P200.00 but not more than P3,000.00.^[1]
Since the fine for grave coercion is not over P500.00, the crime is within such
concurrent jurisdiction and the filing of the information in the Court of First
Instance gave authority to that Court to retain and try the same.

WHEREFORE, the appealed orders are annulled and set aside,
and the case ordered remanded to the Court of First Instance with instructions
to proceed to trial on the merits.  No
costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

^[1] Peo. vs. Palmon, 86 Phil. 350; Natividad vs. Robles, 87 Phil. 834; Neñaria, et al. vs. Veluz,
91 Phil. 473; Peo. vs.
Colicio, 88 Phil. 196; Villanueva vs. Ortiz,
L-15344, 30 May 1960; Paringit vs. Masakayan, L-16578, 31 July 1961; Esperat
vs. Avila et al., L-25922, June 30, 1967.