G.R. No. L-40037 April 30, 1976
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (in substitution for Municipal Judge Julian B. Pogoy of Cordova, Cebu), petitioner, vs. HON. RAMON E. NAZARENO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Lapulapu City, Branch XVI, MANUEL R. TIRO, CARLOS INOC @ Dodong Inoc, respondents.

FACTS

On June 22, 1974, an information for qualified theft was filed in the Municipal Court of Cordova, Cebu, against Manuel R. Tiro and others for allegedly stealing two female goats valued at P150. The accused challenged the municipal court’s jurisdiction, arguing that qualified theft, under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code, prescribes a penalty of prision mayor medium to reclusion temporal minimum. Since this penalty exceeds three years of imprisonment, they contended the case fell under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance under Section 87(c) of the Judiciary Law. The municipal court upheld its jurisdiction, citing precedents on concurrent jurisdiction.
The accused then filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. The CFI sustained their position, ruling that jurisdiction over qualified theft is determined by the penalty prescribed by law, not the value of the property, and thus it had exclusive jurisdiction. It relied on the dictum in Esperat vs. Avila. Municipal Judge Pogoy’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this certiorari action, with the People of the Philippines substituted as petitioner.

ISSUE

Whether the theft of two goats valued at P150 constitutes qualified theft falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, or simple theft within the concurrent jurisdiction of the municipal court and the CFI.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that the municipal court and the CFI have concurrent jurisdiction. The legal logic is twofold. First, the theft involved is simple theft, not qualified theft. Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes theft of “large cattle” as qualified. The Court meticulously defined “large cattle” (ganado mayor), citing dictionaries and Act No. 2030 , to include carabaos, horses, mules, asses, and bovine family members like cows. Goats are considered ganado menor or small cattle (ganado cabrio) and are expressly excluded from the legal definition of “large cattle.” Therefore, stealing goats does not qualify the crime under Article 310.
Second, since the crime is simple theft of property valued at P150, the applicable penalty under Article 309(4) is arresto mayor medium to prision correccional minimum (2 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months). Under Section 87 of the Judiciary Act, offenses punishable with imprisonment for more than six months or a fine of more than P200, but not exceeding three years imprisonment or a P3,000 fine, fall within the concurrent original jurisdiction of municipal courts and Courts of First Instance. The penalty for this simple theft and the value of the property (less than P200) both satisfy the criteria for concurrent jurisdiction. The CFI erred in applying the Esperat dictum on penalty-based jurisdiction, as that case involved a different crime (grave coercion) and its reasoning on concurrent jurisdiction zones was clarified. The order of the CFI was set aside.