G.R. No. L-46228. January 17, 1978.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. ROLANDO R. VILLARAZA (as City Judge of Cagayan de Oro City), and CAESAR PUERTO, respondents.

FACTS

On December 3, 1975, an assistant city fiscal charged respondent Caesar Puerto with estafa in the City Court of Cagayan de Oro City. The information alleged that on October 16, 1974, Puerto issued two bouncing checks totaling P4,966.63. After the accused waived the second stage of preliminary investigation, City Judge Rolando R. Villaraza ordered the case elevated to the Court of First Instance (CFI) for trial. The CFI, however, returned the case to the city court, holding that the offense fell within their concurrent jurisdiction and the city court, having first taken cognizance, should try it.
Respondent city judge disagreed and, in an order dated April 21, 1977, directed the re-elevation of the case to the CFI. His position was that the applicable penalty was governed by Presidential Decree No. 818, which took effect on October 22, 1975, and which amended the Revised Penal Code to impose a penalty of prision mayor medium for estafa committed by issuing bouncing checks. He concluded this penalty placed the case within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the CFI.

ISSUE

Whether the City Court of Cagayan de Oro City has jurisdiction to try the estafa case against Caesar Puerto.

RULING

Yes, the City Court has original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that the applicable law for determining jurisdiction is the penalty prescribed by law at the time of the commission of the offense. The estafa was committed on October 16, 1974. At that time, Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code prescribed a penalty ranging from arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum (4 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months). Presidential Decree No. 818, which imposes the heavier penalty of prision mayor medium (8 years and 1 day to 10 years), took effect only on October 22, 1975. Applying P.D. No. 818 retroactively to an act committed before its effectivity would constitute a prohibited ex post facto law, violating Article 21 of the Revised Penal Code and the Constitution.
Since the imposable penalty did not exceed prision correccional, the case fell within the concurrent original jurisdiction of the city court and the CFI under Section 87 of the Judiciary Act, as amended. The city court, as the court where the information was initially filed, properly acquired jurisdiction. The preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal was sufficient. Therefore, the CFI order returning the case to the city court was affirmed, and the respondent judge’s orders for elevation were set aside. The city court was directed to proceed with the trial.