G.R. No. 117363 December 17, 1999
MILA G. PANGILINAN, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Mila G. Pangilinan was charged with Estafa before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Morong, Rizal. The information alleged that in June 1984, through false pretenses and misrepresentation, she induced a minor to deliver a stereo component and accessories valued at P17,450.00, purportedly for testing, but then absconded with the items. After trial, the RTC convicted Pangilinan of Estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to four months of arresto mayor and a fine.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC had jurisdiction to try and convict the accused based on the allegations in the information.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the conviction, ruling that the RTC lacked jurisdiction. A circumspect examination of the information revealed it failed to allege all elements of Estafa under Article 315(1)(b), particularly a demand by the offended party. Instead, the facts alleged constituted the crime of “Other Deceits” under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code, punishable by imprisonment ranging from one month and one day to six months. Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, such an offense, punishable by imprisonment not exceeding four years and two months, fell within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court, not the RTC. Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the information, and a court acting without jurisdiction renders its judgment null and void. The Court emphasized that the rule on variance between allegation and proof presupposes the court’s initial jurisdiction, which was absent here. Consequently, the RTC’s decision was void for lack of jurisdiction.