G.R. No. L-11395; January 31, 1958
SOTERA GARCIA DIMAGIBA, petitioner, vs. HON. AMBROSIO M. GERALDEZ, Judge, Municipal Court of Manila, Branch IV and the CITY FISCAL OF MANILA, respondents.

FACTS

On March 14, 1955, an information for estafa involving P200.00 was filed against petitioner Sotera Garcia Dimagiba in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Criminal Case No. 30750). On November 5, 1955, after the accused pleaded not guilty, the court dismissed the information for want of jurisdiction. Subsequently, on January 17, 1956, the City Fiscal filed a replica of the same information before the Municipal Court of Manila. The petitioner filed a motion to quash, alleging double jeopardy. The motion was denied, prompting the petitioner to institute this action for certiorari against the order of dismissal of the Court of First Instance and prohibition to enjoin the Municipal Court from taking cognizance of the new information.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance of Manila had concurrent jurisdiction with the Municipal Court of Manila over the estafa case involving P200.00, such that its dismissal of the information for lack of jurisdiction constitutes jeopardy, barring the subsequent filing of the same information in the Municipal Court.

RULING

The petition is denied. The Court of First Instance of Manila did not have jurisdiction, concurrent or otherwise, over the estafa case. The offense charged involves misappropriation of P200.00, punishable under Article 315, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code with arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods. Under Section 41 of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila (Republic Act No. 409), the Municipal Court has exclusive jurisdiction over all criminal cases where the maximum punishment is imprisonment for not more than six months or a fine of not more than two hundred pesos, or both. The same section grants the Municipal Court concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance over specific crimes, including estafa where the amount involved does not exceed P200.00. However, this provision defines the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court only and cannot be construed as a grant of concurrent jurisdiction to the Court of First Instance over cases falling within the Municipal Court’s exclusive jurisdiction. Jurisdiction cannot be implied; the Court of First Instance’s jurisdiction is defined by Republic Act No. 296 (The Judiciary Act of 1948). Furthermore, it is unreasonable to assume the Legislature intended to grant a court of general jurisdiction like the Court of First Instance concurrent jurisdiction over minor offenses. Since the Court of First Instance never acquired valid jurisdiction over the case, its dismissal did not place the petitioner in jeopardy. Therefore, the Municipal Court may properly take cognizance of the information.