8/19/22, 5:39 PM G.R. No.

45815

Today is Friday, August 19, 2022

  Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive

Republic of the Philippines

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 45815 May 18, 1990

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs.
LIBERTAD LAGON and HON. JUDGE ISIDRO O. BARRIOS, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE CITY COURT OF
ROXAS CITY, respondents.

FELICIANO, J.:
On 7 July 1976, a criminal information was filed with the City Court of Roxas City and docketed as Criminal Case No. 7362, charging private respondent Libertad
Lagon with the crime of estafa under paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The information charged that the accused had allegedly issued a
check in the amount of P4,232.80 as payment for goods or merchandise purchased, knowing that she did not have sufficient funds to cover the check, which
check therefore subsequently bounced.

The case proceeded to trial and the prosecution commenced the presentation of its evidence. However, in an Order
dated 2 December 1976, the City Court dismissed the information upon the ground that the penalty prescribed by
law for the offense charged was beyond the court's authority to impose. The judge held that the jurisdiction of a
court to try a criminal action is determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action, and not by
the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime. At the time of the alleged commission of the crime in
April 1975, jurisdiction over the offense was vested by law in the City Court. However, by the time the criminal
information was filed, paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code had already been amended and the
penalty imposable upon a person accused thereunder increased, which penalty was beyond the City Court's
authority to impose. Accordingly, the court dismissed the information without prejudice to its being refiled in the
proper court.

Hence this Petition for Review brought by the People, arguing that the City Court of Roxas City had jurisdiction over
Criminal Case No. 7362 and that it had erred in issuing its Order dismissing the case. Because the Petition for
Review was signed by the City Fiscal and Assistant City Fiscal of Roxas City as counsel for the People, the Court
referred the petition to the Office of the Solicitor General for comment. Responding to the Court's resolution, the
then acting Solicitor General Vicente Mendoza stated that the Office of the Solicitor General, having been previously
consulted by the Assistant City Fiscal of Roxas City, agreed with the position taken by the latter that the City Court
had jurisdiction over the criminal case involved, and asked that the petition be given due course.

After deliberation on the instant Petition for Review, the Court considers that petitioner has failed to show that the
City Court had committed reversible error in dismissing the criminal information in Criminal Case No. 7362 without
prejudice to its refiling in the proper court.

Under the penultimate paragraph of Section 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, the law governing the
subject matter jurisdiction of municipal and city courts in criminal cases in 1975 and 1976, "[municipal judges in the
capitals of provinces and sub-provinces and judges of city courts shall have like jurisdiction as the Court of First
Instance to try parties charged with an offense within their respective jurisdictions, in which the penalty provided by
law does not exceed prision correccional or imprisonment for not more than six (6) years or fine not exceeding
P6,000.00 or both . . . ." It appears that at the time of the commission of the offense charged on 5 April 1975, the
penalty imposable for the offense charged under paragraph 2(d) in relation to the third sub-paragraph of the first
paragraph, Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, was arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional
in its minimum period; at that time therefore, the offense clearly fell within the jurisdiction of the City Court of Roxas
City.

At the time of the institution of the criminal prosecution on 7 July 1976, the penalty imposable for the offense
charged in Criminal Case No. 7362 had been increased by P.D. No. 818 (effective 22 October 1975) to prision
mayor in its medium period.

It is firmly settled doctrine that the subject matter jurisdiction of a court in criminal law matters is properly measured
by the law in effect at the time of the commencement of a criminal action, rather than by the law in effect at the time
of the commission of the offense charged. 1 Thus, in accordance with the above rule, jurisdiction over the instant
case pertained to the then Court of First Instance of Roxas City considering that P.D. No. 818 had increased the

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/may1990/gr_45815_1990.html 1/3
8/19/22, 5:39 PM G.R. No. 45815
imposable penalty for the offense charged in Criminal Case No. 7362 to a level-in excess of the minimum penalty
which a city court could impose.

The real question raised by the petitioner is: would application of the above-settled doctrine to the instant case not
result in also applying Presidential Decree No. 818 to the present case, in disregard of the rule against retroactivity
of penal laws? Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code permits penal laws to have retroactive effect only "insofar as
they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, . . . " We do not believe so.

In the first place, subject-matter jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined by the authority of the court to impose
the penalty imposable under the applicable statute given the allegations of a criminal information. In People v.
Purisima,2 the Court stressed that:

xxx xxx xxx

. . . The issue here is one of jurisdiction, of a court's legal competence to try a case ab origine. In
criminal prosecutions, it is settled that the jurisdiction of the court is not determined by what may be
meted out to the offender after trial, or even by the result of the evidence that would be presented at
the trial, but by the extent of the penalty which the law imposes for the misdemeanor, crime or violation
charged in the complaint. If the facts recited in the complaint and the punishment provided for by law
are sufficient to show that the court in which the complaint is presented has jurisdiction, that court must
assume jurisdiction. 3
(Citations omitted; Emphasis supplied.)

The same rule was set forth and amplified in People v. Buissan, 4
in the following terms:

xxx xxx xxx

. . . in criminal prosecutions, jurisdiction of the court is not determined by what may be meted out to the
offender after trial (People v. Cuello, 1 SCRA 814) or even by the result of the evidence that would be
presented during the trial (People v. Co Hick 62 Phil. 503) but by the extent of the penalty which the law
imposes, together with other legal obligations, on the basis of the facts as recited in the complaint or
information (People v. Purisima, 69 SCRA 347) constitutive of the offense charged, for once jurisdiction
is acquired by the court in which the information is filed, it is retained regardless whether the evidence
proves a lesser offense than that charged in the information (People v. Mision, 48 O.G. 1330) 5
(Emphasis supplied.)

Thus, it may be that after trial, a penalty lesser than the maximum imposable under the statute is proper under the
specific facts and circumstances proven at the trial. In such a case, that lesser penalty may be imposed by the trial
court (provided it had subject-matter jurisdiction under the rule above referred to) even if the reduced penalty
otherwise falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of an inferior court.

In People v. Buissan, 6 the Court also said:

xxx xxx xxx

. . . It is unquestionable that the Court of First Instance, taking cognizance of a criminal case coming
under its jurisdiction, may, after trial, impose a penalty that is proper for a crime within the exclusive
competence of a municipal or city court as the evidence would warrant. It may not be said, therefore,
that the Court of First Instance would be acting without jurisdiction if in a simple seduction case, it
would impose penalty of not more than six months of imprisonment, if said case, for the reason already
adverted to, be held to fall under the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, not a city or municipal
court. 7 (Emphasis supplied.)

In the case at bar, the increased penalty provided for the offense charged in Criminal Case No. 7362 by P.D. No.
818 (prison mayor in its medium period) is obviously heavier than the penalty provided for the same offense
originally imposed by paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (up to prision correccional in its
minimum period).

Should the criminal information be refiled in the proper court, that is, the proper Regional Trial Court, that court may
not impose that more onerous penalty upon private respondent Libertad Lagon (assuming the evidence shows that
the offense was committed before 22 October 1975). But the Regional Trial Court would remain vested with subject-
matter jurisdiction to try and decide the (refiled) case even though the penalty properly imposable, given the date of
the commission of the offense charged, should be the lower penalty originally provided for in paragraph 2(d) of
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code which is otherwise within the exclusive jurisdiction of the City Court of Roxas
City. In other words, the circumstance that P.D. No. 818 would be inapplicable to the refiled case would not result in
the Regional Trial Court losing subject-matter jurisdiction, nor in the case falling back into the City Court's exclusive
jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved to DENY the Petition for Review for lack of merit. The Order dated 2 December
1976 of the public respondent Presiding Judge of the City Court of Roxas City is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.

Fernan, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/may1990/gr_45815_1990.html 2/3
8/19/22, 5:39 PM G.R. No. 45815
1 People v. Pegarum 58 Phil. 715 [1933]; People v. Romualdo, 90 Phil. 739 [1952]; People v. Pecson,
92 Phil. 172 [1952]; Lee v. Presiding Judge, 145 SCRA 408 [1986]; Dela Cruz v. Moya, 160 SCRA 838
[1988].

2 69 SCRA 341 (1976).

3 69 SCRA at 347.

4 105 SCRA 547 (1981).

5 105 SCRA at 552-553.

6 Supra.

7 105 SCRA at 551-552.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/may1990/gr_45815_1990.html 3/3