G.R. No. L-10534; January 11, 1915
J. C. COWPER, petitioner, vs. W. H. DADE, Director of Prisons, respondent.

FACTS:
The petitioner, J. C. Cowper, was charged in the Municipal Court of Manila with embezzling ₱20 from a mutual benefit association. He was tried and convicted under the provisions of the Penal Code defining estafa, not under Section 4 of Act No. 701, which specifically punishes embezzlement of funds of a mutual benefit association. He was sentenced to two months and one day of arresto mayor. On appeal, the Court of First Instance also tried and convicted him under the same charge and imposed the same penalty. Cowper filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that the Municipal Court lacked jurisdiction because the crime fell under a “special law” (Act No. 701) prescribing a penalty beyond the Municipal Court’s jurisdiction. He argued that the judgment of the Court of First Instance was void for lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE:
Whether the writ of habeas corpus should be granted on the ground that the Municipal Court lacked jurisdiction over the offense charged.

RULING:
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordered the petitioner remanded to custody. The Court held that a remedy by appeal was available to the petitioner, and thus habeas corpus was not the proper remedy. The complaint was dismissed with costs against the petitioner.

Separate Opinion of Justice Moreland (Concurring and Dissenting):
Justice Moreland concurred in the result but disagreed with the sole ground that an appeal precluded habeas corpus. He based his concurrence on two points:
1. The Municipal Court had jurisdiction. Under Section 40 of the Manila Charter (as amended by Act No. 2017), the Municipal Court had concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance over embezzlement (including estafa under the Penal Code) where the amount did not exceed ₱200. This jurisdiction extended to crimes under Act No. 701, as it is a form of embezzlement. The severity of the penalty under Act No. 701 did not deprive the Municipal Court of jurisdiction.
2. Even if the Municipal Court lacked jurisdiction, the Court of First Instance’s judgment was valid. The Court of First Instance had original jurisdiction over the offense. Under established jurisprudence, when an appellate court (Court of First Instance) tries a case on the merits without objection, it is deemed an exercise of its original jurisdiction, validating the judgment.

Justice Moreland emphasized that the availability of an appeal does not bar habeas corpus if jurisdictional grounds exist, but such grounds were absent here.