G.R. No. L-15344; May 30, 1960
JOSE R. VILLANUEVA, City Attorney of the City of Butuan, petitioner, vs. THE HON. MONTANO A. ORTIZ, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Agusan, ANTONIO MORDENO and MALAQUIAS FORTUN, respondents.

FACTS

On December 9, 1953, the City Attorney of Butuan filed two criminal cases (Nos. 607 and 608) with the Municipal Court of Butuan against Antonio Mordeno and Malaquias Fortun. The informations charged the accused with assault upon a person in authority with disturbance of public order, alleging that on November 10, 1953, they entered a school where election precincts were canvassing results, and willfully assaulted election inspectors and watchers (Narciso Medrano, Apolinario Lupos, Simeon Loquinte, and Pablo Remoneda) while they were performing their duties, thereby causing serious disturbance and interrupting the public functions of the precincts. After the accused waived their right to the second stage of preliminary investigation, the cases were forwarded to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Agusan for trial. New informations for the same charge were filed in the CFI. The accused pleaded not guilty, and a joint trial was held where evidence was presented. However, instead of deciding the cases, the CFI issued a resolution on September 30, 1958, remanding them to the Municipal Court, holding that it lacked jurisdiction. The CFI theorized that the accused committed the crime of assault without intent to kill, an offense under section 87(c) of the Judiciary Act of 1948, which was within the concurrent jurisdiction of the Municipal Court but, because the Municipal Court first took cognizance, fell under its exclusive jurisdiction. The City Attorney’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition to declare the resolution null and void for excess of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion, and to order the CFI judge to render judgment based on the evidence already presented.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance of Agusan acted with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of its jurisdiction in remanding the criminal cases to the Municipal Court on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, declaring the CFI’s resolution null and void and ordering it to render judgment in the criminal cases based on the evidence presented. The Court held:
1. Jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined by the allegations in the information. A scrutiny of the informations shows the accused were charged with the complex crime of assault upon a person in authority with disturbance of public order, defined under Articles 148 and 153 of the Revised Penal Code, respectively.
2. The penalty for assault upon a person in authority (Article 148) is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding ₱1,000. The penalty for serious disturbance of public order (Article 153) is arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding ₱1,000. Each crime is punishable by imprisonment of more than six months and a fine of more than ₱200, placing them within the original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance under section 44(f) of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
3. Even if only the crime of assault upon a person in authority (Article 148) were charged, the CFI would still have jurisdiction. The “assaults” referred to in section 87(c) of the Judiciary Act (concurrent jurisdiction of municipal courts) pertain to crimes against persons under Title Eight of the Revised Penal Code. In contrast, direct assaults under Article 148 are crimes against public order under Title Three, where the victim is a person in authority attacked on the occasion of their official duties.
4. Even assuming the offenses fell under section 87(c), the jurisdiction of Municipal Courts over such offenses is concurrent with the Court of First Instance when the penalty exceeds six months’ imprisonment or a fine over ₱200. Since the informations filed in the Municipal Court were for preliminary investigation purposes only and the CFI had already tried the cases on the merits, the CFI validly acquired jurisdiction to the exclusion of the Municipal Court. The rule is that where courts have concurrent jurisdiction, the first to validly acquire it excludes the others.