PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. HON. ROLANDO R. VILLARAZA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. HON. ROLANDO R. VILLARAZA

81 SCRA 95

G.R. No. L-46228

January 17, 1978

FACTS:

On March 31, 1976, City Judge Rolando R. Villaraza, directed that it be elevated, for trial, to the Court of First Instance the case of Caesar Puerto, who on December 3, 1975 , was charged with estafa by the city assistant fiscal in the city court of Cagayan de Oro City for having issued on October 16, 1974 two bouncing checks for the total sum of P4,966.63.

The Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental, Cagayan de Oro Branch VIII, in its order of February 3, 1977 returned the case to the city court because in its opinion the case falls within the concurrent jurisdiction of the two courts and, the city court, as the first court which took cognizance of the case, should try it.

Disagreeing with the Court of First Instance, respondent city judge in his order of April 21, 1977 directed the re-elevation of the case. His view is that the case falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance because estafa committed by the accused is punishable by prision mayor medium under Presidential Decree No. 818 which took effect on October 22, 1975 and which amended article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

ISSUES:

(1)  Whether the penalty of prision mayor medium, or eight years and one day to ten years, imposed by Presidential Decree No. 818 which took effect on October 22, 1975 be applicable to a crime committed on October 16, 1974?

(2)  Whether the city court has jurisdiction to try the case?

RULING:

(1)  No. The penalty of prision mayor medium, or eight years and one day to ten years, imposed by Presidential Decree No. 818, applies only to swindling by means of issuing bouncing checks which was committed on or after October 22, 1975. That increased penalty does not apply to the estafa committed by Puerto on October 16, 1974. To apply it to Puerto would make the decree an ex post facto law. Its retroactive application is prohibited by articles 21 and 22 of the Revised Penal Code and section 12, Article IV of the Constitution.

(2)  Yes. The city court has original jurisdiction over the case because the penultimate paragraph of section 87 of the Judiciary Law, as amended by Republic Acts Nos. 2613 and 3828, provides that "judges of city courts 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."

Hence, the order of the Court of First Instance, returning the case to the city court, is affirmed and the two orders of the respondent city judge, elevating the case to the Court of First Instance are set aside. The city court is directed to try the case. No costs.