THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE JUDGE AMANTE P. PURISIMA, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, BRANCH VII, AND JOSEFA PESIMO, RESPONDENTS.

People versus Purisima

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Judge Amante P. Purisima of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch Seven, and Josefa Pesimo. The People challenge the trial court's order dismissing a criminal information for making false statements in a certificate of live birth, on the ground that the offense fell outside the court's jurisdiction. The case matters because it fixes the boundary line between the exclusive and the concurrent criminal jurisdiction of courts of first instance and city courts, and because it states the rule that jurisdiction is measured by the penalty imposed by law, not by what the court might eventually impose after trial.

Procedural History

On May 9, 1975, the City Fiscal of Manila charged Josefa Pesimo before the Court of First Instance of Manila with violation of Section 16 of Act Number 3753, the Civil Register Law. On May 26, 1975, the respondent court dismissed the case on its own motion, holding that the offense did not fall within its jurisdiction because the prescribed imprisonment of one month to six months was below the floor limit of its original criminal jurisdiction. The People moved for reconsideration, and the respondent court denied the motion in its order of June 19, 1975. The People then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

The information alleged that on or about January 20, 1969, in the City of Manila, Josefa Pesimo wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly made false statements in the Certificate of Live Birth of her son, Carlos Pesimo Cucueco, Junior, born on that date. The certificate was presented for entry in the Civil Registrar of Manila.

The information alleged that she made it appear that her son was her legitimate child with one Carlos Layug Cucueco, and that she was married to him on April 3, 1962, at San Jose, Camarines Sur, when in truth she had never been married to him and the child was not their legitimate child.

The offense is punishable by imprisonment of not less than one month nor more than six months, or a fine of not less than 200 pesos nor more than 500 pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court. The trial court read the imprisonment penalty alone as falling below its jurisdictional floor and dismissed the case, prompting the present petition.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction over the offense charged, considering that the prescribed imprisonment does not exceed six months.
• Whether or not the alternative penalty of fine, and the possibility of imposing both imprisonment and fine, brings the offense within the jurisdictional range of the Court of First Instance.
• Whether or not, assuming concurrent jurisdiction with the City Court of Manila, the court that first acquired jurisdiction retains it to the exclusion of the others.

Applicable Provisions

Section 44, paragraph (f) of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, provides:

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 fixes the outer boundary of the exclusive original criminal jurisdiction of courts of first instance.

Section 87, paragraph (c) of the same Act provides:

Offenses in which the penalty provided by law is imprisonment for not more than three years, or a fine of not more than three hundred pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment.

This fixes the exclusive jurisdiction of municipal courts, which city courts share.

The same section further provides:

Shall have like jurisdiction as the Court of First Instance to try parties charged with an offense committed within their respective jurisdictions, in which the penalty provided by law does not exceed prision correccional or imprisonment for not more than six years or fine not exceeding six thousand pesos or both.

This enlarges the jurisdiction of city courts and municipal courts of provincial capitals, creating the zone of concurrent jurisdiction at issue.

Section 16 of Act Number 3753, the Civil Register Law, provides:

Any person who shall knowingly make false statements in the forms furnished and shall present the same for entry in the civil register, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one month nor more than six, or by a fine of not less than two hundred pesos nor more than five hundred, or both, in the discretion of the court.

This is the penal provision charged, and its fine range is what brings the offense within the reach of the Court of First Instance.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition is meritorious and that the two provisions can stand together and be given conjoint, not discordant, effect. The exclusive jurisdiction of municipal and city courts covers only offenses where the penalty does not exceed six months imprisonment or a 200 peso fine. Once the penalty exceeds those limits, jurisdiction becomes concurrent with the courts of first instance: up to three years or a 3,000 peso fine for municipal courts, and up to six years or a 6,000 peso fine for city courts and municipal courts of provincial capitals. The Court quoted its earlier ruling in Esperat versus Avila:

Between these exclusive jurisdictions lies a zone where the jurisdiction is concurrent.

On the second issue, the Court held that the trial court erred in looking only at the imprisonment penalty. Imprisonment is not the sole penalty; there is also the alternative fine of not less than 200 pesos nor more than 500 pesos, and the law allows both imprisonment and fine. The fine alone brings the offense within the jurisdictional range of the Court of First Instance, whose jurisdiction originates in all criminal cases in which the penalty provided by law is a fine of more than 200 pesos. The Court stressed that jurisdiction is determined by the penalty imposed by law, not by what may be meted out after trial or by the result of the evidence.

On the third issue, the Court held that although jurisdiction is concurrent with the city court, the filing of the information in the Court of First Instance vested authority in that court to retain and try the case. It is an axiom in procedural law that where several courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the same offense, the court which first acquires jurisdiction of the prosecution retains it to the exclusion of the others.

Doctrine

First, criminal jurisdiction is determined by the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged, and not by what the court may impose after trial or by the evidence presented. Second, the exclusive original jurisdiction of municipal and city courts is confined to offenses punishable by imprisonment of not more than six months or a fine of not more than 200 pesos. Third, where the penalty exceeds those limits, jurisdiction becomes concurrent with the courts of first instance, and the court that first acquires jurisdiction retains it to the exclusion of the others. Fourth, where the law provides an alternative fine exceeding 200 pesos, or allows both imprisonment and fine, the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction even if the imprisonment penalty does not exceed six months.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the orders of the trial court, and remanded the case for trial on the merits after arraignment of the accused, with no pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: jurisdiction is determined by the penalty imposed by law, not by what may be meted out after trial, and where jurisdiction is concurrent, the court that first acquires it retains it. Examiners use this case to test the boundary between exclusive and concurrent criminal jurisdiction, and the effect of an alternative fine on the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.