G.R. No. 126623 December 12, 1997
ERNESTO MORALES y DELA CRUZ, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ALFREDO J. GUSTILO, as Presiding Judge of RTC, Pasay City, Branch 116 and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ernesto Morales y Dela Cruz was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 116, with violation of Section 15 in relation to Section 20 of R.A. No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended by R.A. No. 7659, for selling and delivering 0.4587 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 96-8443. Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty. He subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case, arguing that pursuant to Section 20 of R.A. No. 7659 as construed in People v. Simon, the imposable penalty for the offense charged, given the quantity of shabu involved, should not exceed prision correccional or six (6) years, and that under R.A. No. 7691, jurisdiction over such cases lies with the Metropolitan Trial Court. The RTC denied the motion, holding that under Section 39 of R.A. No. 6425, the RTC has concurrent original jurisdiction over all cases involving offenses punishable under the said Act. The RTC also denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 40670). The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), in its Comment, agreed with petitioner that the RTC had no jurisdiction but asserted that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction over the special civil action for certiorari as it involved a question of jurisdiction of an inferior court, which is cognizable by the Supreme Court alone. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, citing Section 5(2)(c), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution and Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner then filed this petition for review under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court where the issue is the jurisdiction of the respondent RTC Judge to try the alleged violation of R.A. No. 6425.
2. Whether the respondent RTC Judge/Court has jurisdiction to try the alleged violation of Section 15, in relation to Section 20, Article III of R.A. No. 6425, as amended, involving only 0.4587 grams of shabu.

RULING

1. Yes, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for lack of jurisdiction. Under Section 9(1) of B.P. Blg. 129, the Court of Appeals has concurrent original jurisdiction with the Supreme Court (pursuant to Section 5(1) of Article VIII of the Constitution and Section 17(1) of the Judiciary Act of 1948) and with the Regional Trial Courts to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus, and quo warranto. These are original actions, not modes of appeal. The provisions cited by the Court of Appeals (Section 5(2)(c) of Article VIII of the Constitution and Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948) pertain to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, not to an original action under Rule 65. A special civil action for certiorari is a proper remedy where a lower court has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in denying a motion to dismiss.
2. No, the respondent RTC does not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the offense charged. Applying Section 20 of R.A. No. 7659 as interpreted in People v. Simon, the sale of 0.4587 grams of shabu is punishable by prision correccional, whose maximum period is six (6) years. Under R.A. No. 7691, which expanded the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years is vested in these lower courts. The exception in the opening sentence of Section 32 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, for “cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court” does not apply because Section 39 of R.A. No. 6425, which granted the then Court of First Instance (now RTC) concurrent original jurisdiction over violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, was impliedly repealed by Section 6 of R.A. No. 7691, which provides that all laws inconsistent with its provisions are considered amended or modified accordingly. Therefore, violations of R.A. No. 6425 where the imposable penalty does not exceed six (6) years fall within the jurisdiction of the lower courts. The Supreme Court directed the RTC to dismiss Criminal Case No. 96-8443 and ordered that the records be transmitted to the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City for further proceedings.