G.R. No. L-4 and G.R. No. L-19; September 4, 1945
Angel Cruz y Encarnacion, petitioner-appellant, vs. Guillermo Cabrera, Judge of Municipal Court of Manila, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

1. Petitioner Angel Cruz was accused on May 17, 1945, in the Municipal Court of Manila of qualified theft of eight cases of storage batteries valued at P40. He had been released on bail since May 15, 1945.
2. During trial, a prosecution witness testified the batteries’ value could have been P240, not P40 as alleged in the information. The batteries were not produced in court.
3. After the prosecution rested, petitioner moved to quash the information for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the municipal court had no jurisdiction over qualified theft involving property valued at P240. The respondent judge denied the motion. Petitioner declined to present evidence.
4. On May 31, 1945, petitioner filed an omnibus motion containing all objections to the proceedings, which was also denied.
5. On June 4, 1945, the respondent judge issued an order for petitioner to appear on June 9, 1945, for promulgation of sentence. Petitioner claims he never received this order.
6. On June 8, 1945, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and a writ of preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the respondent judge.
7. On June 9, 1945, the respondent judge issued an order for petitioner’s arrest due to his change of residence. On June 12, 1945, he issued a bench warrant for petitioner’s arrest for failure to appear on June 9. Petitioner was arrested on June 19, 1945.
8. On June 15, 1945, Judge Mamerto Roxas of the Court of First Instance of Manila denied the motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the certiorari petition. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and he filed a notice of appeal on June 26, 1945.
9. On June 19, 1945, the judgment of conviction was promulgated, finding petitioner guilty of qualified theft of property valued at P40 as alleged, notwithstanding the witness’s testimony of a possible P240 value. On June 20, 1945, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance of Manila, alleging his detention under the bench warrant was unlawful while certiorari proceedings were pending.
10. On June 22, 1945, the Court of First Instance denied the habeas corpus petition. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal the same day.
11. On June 26, 1945, petitioner filed a notice of appeal to the Court of First Instance from the judgment of conviction and filed an appeal bond. The appealed case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 70893.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Municipal Court of Manila has jurisdiction to try cases of qualified theft when the value of the property alleged to have been stolen is P40 (or does not exceed P200).
2. Whether the municipal court lost jurisdiction because a prosecution witness testified the property’s value could have been P240, not the P40 alleged in the information.
3. Whether the bench warrant issued by the respondent judge for petitioner’s failure to appear for sentencing was illegal.

RULING

1. On Jurisdiction for Qualified Theft: The Municipal Court of Manila has jurisdiction to try cases of qualified theft as long as the value of the property involved does not exceed P200. Jurisdiction is based on the value of the property stolen, not the penalty that may be imposed. This is settled doctrine, as established in People vs. De Leon, People vs. Kaw Liong, and other cited cases.
2. On the Testimony Regarding Value: The municipal court retained jurisdiction. The respondent judge found petitioner guilty based on the value of P40 as alleged in the information. The testimony of a witness concerning a higher possible value is not binding on the court, and the court’s factual finding on value is more properly reviewable on appeal than via certiorari.
3. On the Legality of the Bench Warrant: The respondent judge had authority to issue the bench warrant under Section 2469 of the Revised Administrative Code for petitioner’s failure to appear for sentencing.
4. On the Habeas Corpus Petition: The issue in the habeas corpus case became moot upon the promulgation of the judgment of conviction and petitioner’s appeal from that decision. The writ of habeas corpus cannot be invoked when the right of appeal exists, as its purpose is to determine the legality of detention, not to correct errors of a trial court that had jurisdiction over the person and subject matter.
The judgments appealed from, dismissing the petitions for certiorari and habeas corpus, are affirmed. Costs against petitioner-appellant.