Bankers Insurance Corporation [Jan 26, 1989] Facts: Solemnidad M. Buaya was an insurance agent who was authorized to transact and collect the premiums for CBIC. Buaya is required to account and remit premium collections to the principal office of private respondent located in the City of Manila. An audit showed a shortage in the amount of P358,850.72. She was charged with estafa before the RTC-Manila. She filed a motion to dismiss which was denied by respondent Judge. The subsequent motion for reconsideration of this order of denial was also denied. Buaya: Manila RTC has no jurisdiction because she is based in Cebu City and necessarily the funds she allegedly misappropriated were collected in Cebu City. Subject matter is purely civil in nature because the fact that CBIC separately filed a civil case involving the same alleged misappropriated amount. CBIC: Denial of a motion to dismiss or to quash, being interlocutory in character, cannot be questioned by certiorari and it cannot be the subject of appeal until final judgment or order rendered (See. 2, Rule 41, Rules of Court). Procedure to be followed is to enter a Plea, go to trial and if the decision is adverse, reiterate the issue on appeal from the final judgment (Newsweek Inc. v. IAC) Issue/Held: 1. WON denial of a motion to dismiss or to quash, being interlocutory in character, cannot be questioned by certiorari and it cannot be the subject of appeal until final judgment or order rendered?
As a general rule, YES, but there are
exceptions because it would be unfair to require the defendant or accused to undergo the ordeal of a trial if the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or offense or it is not the court of proper venue. 2. WON the Manila RTC has jurisdiction? Allegations of complaint as basis YES. Jurisdiction of court is based on the COMPLAINT. Averments in the complaint or information characterize the crime to be prosecuted and the court before which it must be tried (Balite v. People). The jurisdiction of courts in criminal cases is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information, and not by the findings the court may make after the trial (People v. Mission, 87 Phil. 641). Essential Elements of a crime Section 14(a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court: In all criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province wherein the offense was committed or any of the essential elements thereof took place. Besides, the crime of estafa is a continuing or transitory offense which may be prosecuted at the place where any of the essential elements of the crime took place. One of the essential elements of estafa is damage or prejudice to the offended party. The failure to remit the insurance premiums she collected allegedly caused damage and prejudice to private respondent in Manila.
Section 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948:
jurisdiction of municipal and city courts... offense in which the penalty does not exceed prision correccional or imprisonment for not more than six (6) years or fine not exceeding P6,000.00 or both . . . ."
People v. Lagon [May 18, 1990]
Nature: Petition for Review filed by the People as represented by the Fiscal arguing that the City Court of Roxas City had jurisdiction and that it had erred in issuing its Order dismissing the case. Facts: Libertad Lagon was charged with estafa under par2(d) RPC 315 in the amount of P4,232.80 as payment for goods or merchandise. April 1975 - alleged commission of the crime [arresto mayor max to PC min] Oct 22 1975 PD 818 was enacted increasing the penalty to PM med July 1976 criminal information filed at City Court Dec 1976 - City Court dismissed the information because the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged was beyond the court's authority to impose. City Court: at the time of the institution of the action OSG: agreed with the City Court Issues/Ruling: 1. WON the City Court has jurisdiction. Whether the court jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at a) the time of the institution of the action or at b) the time of the commission of the crime? Court jurisdiction is determined by the law at the time of the institution of the action. Therefore, the City Court has no jurisdiction over the case. Petition for review dismissed.
2. Would application of the doctrine not result
in also applying PD 818, in disregard of the rule against retroactivity of penal laws? RPC 22 permits penal laws to have retroactive effect only "insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, . . . " Subject-matter jurisdiction 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 and People v. Buissan: 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. Should the information be refiled in the RTC, that court may only impose the penalty provided in the law at the time of the commission of the crime.