[CivPro] | [Jurisdiction in general] 1

[JMCD]

People v
Hermogenes Mariano

[GR NO. L-40527] | [30 June 1987] | [J.

Munoz-Palma]
Petitioner: People of the Philippines
Respondents: Hermogenes Mariano and
Hon. Ambrosio Geraldez, in his capacity
as Presiding Judge of the CFI of Bulacan,
Branch V

CASE SUMMARY Hermogenes Mariano, a

liaison officer appointed by the Mayor of a

municipality in Bulacan was charged with
Estafa, of goods amounting to not more
than 6,000 pesos. Mariano filed a motion to
quash the information alleging among
others, that the court did not have
jurisdiction over the case as a military
commission had already ruled on a
malversation case against the Mayor
involving
the
same
properties.
The
respondent judge then granted the motion.
The PEOPLE then filed this petition before
the SC.

The issue in the case is W/N Civil Courts

and
Military
Commissions
exercise
concurrent jurisdiction over the offense of
Estafa charged against Mariano.
The Supreme court ruled in the negative.
Citing the Judicial Act of 1948, it said that
CFI has original jurisdiction over all criminal
cases in which the penalty is imprisonment
for more than six months or a fine of over
200 pesos. And as the penalty for Estafa
exceeds 6 months, Military commissions
have no authority over them. As so ordered
by the Supreme Court the respondent judge
was to continue the criminal case against
Mariano. (c/o Dans CrimPro digest)

FACTS
[Dec 18, 1974] Office of the
Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan filed
an Information accusing Mariano
of estafa alleged to have been
committed (during the period
from May 11 and June 8, 1971) in
San Jose del Monte, Bulacan.

Mariano was then appointed as

Liaison Officer by the then
incumbent Municipal Mayor
Constantino Nolasco. He was
authorized to receive and be
receipted for US excess property
of USAID/NEC for the use of
municipality electric cables and
cable power of different length,
with a total value of $717.50 or
P4,797.35.
He was tasked to deliver the
items to the Mayor but Mariano,
once in possession of the items,
misappropriated, misapplied and
converted to his personal use said
items.
[Feb 19, 1975] Mariano filed a
motion to quash information on
the following grounds:
a. The court trying the case
has no jurisdiction of the offense
charged or of the person of the
defendant;
b. The criminal action or
liability has been extinguished;
c. It contains averments
which, if true, would constitute a
legal excuse or justification
[MTQ] Mariano claimed that the
items subject of the Information
were the same items for which
Mayor Nolasco was indicted
before a Military Commission
under a charge of malversation of
public property. Mayor Nolasco
had already been found guilty and
sentenced to imprisonment
(10y1d-14y8m) with perpetual
disqualification plus fine. Mariano
further claimed that since the
case against Nolasco had already
been decided by the Military
Tribunal, CFI of Bulacan had lost
jurisdiction over the case against
him.
CFI Judge granted the motion to
quash on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction as the Military
Commission had already taken

cognizance of the case against

Mayor Nolasco. The case involved
the same subject properties and
had already been decided by a
competent tribunal as such, CFI
lost its jurisdiction to decide on
the same subject matter
ISSUE and RATIO
1. WON CFI lost jurisdiction over the
estafa case against Mariano NO
Sec 44(f) of Judiciary Act of
1948 provides that CFI shall
have original jurisdiction in all
criminal cases in which the
penalty provided by law is
imprisonment for more than 6
months or a fine of more than
200 pesos.
Estafa is penalized by arresto
mayor in its maximum period to
prision
correccional
in
its
minimum period (4 months and 1
day to 2 years and four months.
Evidently, it falls under the
original jurisdiction of the CFI.
[People
v
Fontanilla]
The
jurisdiction
of
a
court
is
determined by the statute in force
at the time of the commencement
of the action. In the present case,
the information was filed with the
Jurisdiction definitions

CFI at the time when the law in

force vesting jurisdiction was the
Judiciary Act of 1948. It was not
affected by Presidential issuances
under Martial Law. General Order
49 (Oct 4, 1974) which repealed
G.O. 12 redefines the jurisdiction
of military tribunals over certain
offenses, estafa and malversation
are not among those enumerated.
Respondent court erred when it
ruled that it lost jurisdiction over
the estafa case because the
Military Commission had already
ruled over the same subject
matter in the malversation case
against Mayor Nolasco. Estafa and
malversation are two separate
and distinct offenses. There is no
concurrent jurisdiction between
the two courts considering the
Military Commission do not have
jurisdiction to try the estafa case
against Mariano. It is within the
sole exclusive jurisdiction of civil
courts.

DECISION
Appealed order is set aside.
Respondent Judge directed to
proceed with the trial.

Jurisdiction (derived from Latin words juris and dico I speak by the law) is the
power or capacity given by the law to a court or tribunal to entertain, hear and
determine certain controversies.
It is the right of a judge to pronounce a sentence of the law in a case or issue before
him, acquired through due process of law; the authority by which judicial officers take
cognizance of and decide cases. (Bouviers definition, Chicago Title and Trust Co v
Brown; In re Tailor; State v Wakefield)
[Herrera v Barretto] Justice Moreland defined jurisdiction as the authority to hear and
determine a cause the right to act in a case. It is the right to put the wheels of justice
in motion and to proceed to the final determination of a cause upon the pleadings and
evidence.
Criminal jurisdiction is the authority to hear and try a particular offense and impose
the punishment.

[CivPro] | [Jurisdiction in general] 3

[JMCD]