G.R. No. L-40527 June 30, 1976
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HERMOGENES MARIANO and HON. AMBROSIO M. GERALDEZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch V, respondents.

FACTS

An Information for estafa was filed against private respondent Hermogenes Mariano before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Bulacan. The charge alleged that Mariano, acting as a liaison officer for the municipal mayor, received USAID/NEC property valued at P4,797.35 and misappropriated it. Mariano moved to quash the Information, arguing that the CFI lacked jurisdiction. His claim was based on the fact that the same property was the subject of a concluded malversation case against Mayor Constantino Nolasco before a Military Commission. Mariano contended that since the Military Commission had already taken cognizance of and decided a case involving the identical subject matter, the civil court was thereby divested of jurisdiction to hear his separate estafa case.
Respondent Judge Ambrosio Geraldez granted the motion to quash. The Order reasoned that the Military Commission and the CFI exercised concurrent jurisdiction over the case involving the subject properties. Since the Military Commission had already heard and decided the related case against Mayor Nolasco, the CFI was without jurisdiction to pass upon the same subject matter anew. The prosecution, through the Provincial Fiscal, elevated the matter via certiorari, presenting the sole issue of whether the CFI retained jurisdiction over the estafa case against Mariano.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance of Bulacan retains jurisdiction to try the estafa case against Hermogenes Mariano, notwithstanding the prior adjudication by a Military Commission of a malversation case against a different accused involving the same property.

RULING

Yes, the CFI retains exclusive jurisdiction. The Supreme Court set aside the respondent Judge’s Order and directed the trial to proceed. The ruling is anchored on the fundamental principle that jurisdiction is conferred solely by law. Under Section 44(f) of the Judiciary Act of 1948, Courts of First Instance possess original jurisdiction over criminal cases where the penalty exceeds six months imprisonment. The penalty for estafa involving the amount charged is arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum, which falls within the CFI’s exclusive original jurisdiction.
The legal logic clarifies that there was no concurrent jurisdiction to begin with. The Military Commission’s jurisdiction, as defined by pertinent general orders at the time, did not include the offense of estafa when committed by a civilian. Estafa was, and remained, within the exclusive domain of civil courts. The case before the Military Commission involved a different accused (Mayor Nolasco) and a different offense (malversation). The rule that the tribunal first taking cognizance acquires exclusive jurisdiction applies only when two tribunals are legitimately vested with concurrent jurisdiction over the same offense and the same accused. This prerequisite was absent. Therefore, the prior military proceedings did not oust the CFI of its lawful and exclusive jurisdiction to try Mariano for estafa.