GR 28663; (September, 1976) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-28663 September 22, 1976
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FEDERICO RAGASI, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
An assistant provincial fiscal filed an information in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Lanao del Norte charging Federico Ragasi with damage to public property. The charge alleged that Ragasi, using a truck, maliciously damaged a bridge in Barrio Titunod, Kolambugan, causing damage appraised at P24,912.18. The offense is a special case of malicious mischief under Article 328(1) of the Revised Penal Code, which prescribes a penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, or imprisonment ranging from six months and one day to four years and two months, given that the damage exceeded one thousand pesos.
Before his arraignment, Ragasi filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that the CFI lacked jurisdiction over the case. He contended that the offense fell within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the municipal court of Kolambugan. The lower court agreed with the accused and granted the motion to quash, prompting the prosecution to appeal the order of dismissal to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance correctly dismissed the criminal case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the municipal court had exclusive original jurisdiction over the offense of malicious mischief involving damage to public property.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s order of dismissal. The Court clarified the jurisdictional delineation between inferior courts and Courts of First Instance. Under Section 44(f) of the Judiciary Law, as amended, Courts of First Instance possess original jurisdiction “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.” Conversely, the exclusive original jurisdiction of municipal and city courts, under the then Section 87(b) of the same law, extends to cases where the penalty does not exceed six months’ imprisonment or a two-hundred-peso fine.
While municipal courts indeed have original jurisdiction over the offense of malicious mischief under Section 87(b)(6), this jurisdiction is not exclusive when the imposable penalty exceeds six months of imprisonment. Since the charge against Ragasi involved damage exceeding one thousand pesos, the prescribed penalty was prision correccional minimum and medium, which has a duration of six months and one day to four years and two months. This penalty clearly exceeds the six-month threshold. Therefore, the CFI and the municipal court had concurrent original jurisdiction over the case. The information was correctly filed in the CFI. The lower court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court directed the CFI to reinstate the case, arraign the accused, and proceed with the trial.