GR 16394; (September, 1920) (Digest)
G.R. No. 16394; September 25, 1920
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE MONTAÑEZ, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
The defendant-appellant, Jose Montañez, was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Manila for the crime of frustrated estafa. He was sentenced to four months and twenty-one days of arresto mayor, with accessories, and to pay costs. The information alleged that on or about March 1, 1919, in Manila, Montañez willfully intended to defraud the firm of Lutz & Co. by issuing a check for P1,750 in payment for goods, despite knowing he had no funds in the drawee bank. The fraud did not succeed because the payee discovered the lack of funds in time. The information also alleged Montañez was a recidivist, having been previously convicted of estafa. On appeal, both the prosecution and the defense moved for dismissal, agreeing that the Court of First Instance lacked jurisdiction over the offense charged.
ISSUE:
Whether the Court of First Instance had original jurisdiction to try the case for frustrated estafa based on the facts alleged in the information.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined by examining the facts alleged in the information and the penalty provided by law for those acts. Under the Penal Code, if the estafa had been consummated, the amount involved (exceeding 6,250 pesetas) would warrant the penalty of presidio correccional in its minimum and medium degrees. For the frustrated stage of the crime, Article 65 of the Penal Code requires the penalty next lower in degree, which is arresto mayor. Since the maximum penalty for the charged offense would not exceed six months of arresto mayor, original jurisdiction belonged to the municipal court under Section 546, paragraph 6, of Act No. 136 (The Judiciary Act). The Court further ruled that the accused’s failure to object to jurisdiction was immaterial, as jurisdiction cannot be conferred by waiver when the law does not grant it. The dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of the appropriate action in the competent court.