GR L 2066; (December, 1950) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2066. December 21, 1950.
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MODESTO GEBUNE, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Modesto Gebune was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga for violating Municipal Ordinance No. 39 of Dipolog. He appealed directly to the Supreme Court, raising three errors: (a) the complaint filed in the municipal court, bearing the mayor’s approval, was not formally offered as evidence; (b) no evidence was presented to prove the existence of the ordinance; and (c) the offense had already prescribed due to abandonment of the proceedings.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed reversible error in (a) assuming jurisdiction without the complaint being offered in evidence, (b) taking judicial notice of the municipal ordinance without proof, and (c) proceeding with a case where the offense had allegedly prescribed.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding no merit in the appeal.
1. On the complaint: The original complaint filed in the justice of the peace court conferred jurisdiction upon the Court of First Instance on appeal. It is an integral part of the record and need not be formally offered as evidence. The trial de novo on appeal is based on the same issues and proceedings from the lower court. The provincial fiscal’s filing of an information in the Court of First Instance was unnecessary and superfluous.
2. On the ordinance: Courts of First Instance take judicial notice of municipal ordinances in force within their jurisdictions. They are not required to receive evidence on their existence. If a court errs in declaring the existence or provisions of an ordinance, such error is correctable on appeal just as with any mistake of law.
3. On prescription: The defense of prescription due to abandonment under the Revised Penal Code was not sustained. The mere lapse of two months and six days between the appeal and the filing of the information by the fiscal, without any showing of voluntary and unjustified delay in the proceedings, does not constitute abandonment that would extinguish criminal liability. The record contained no indication of such delay.
The appealed decision was confirmed.
AI Generated by Armztrong.