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 presented as evidence; (b) no proof was presented regarding the existence of the ordinance; and (c) the offense had already prescribed due to abandonment.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed errors in (a) assuming jurisdiction without the complaint as evidence, (b) taking judicial notice of the municipal ordinance without proof, and (c) not finding that the offense had prescribed due to delay in the proceedings.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
(a) On jurisdiction, the complaint filed in the municipal court was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court of First Instance on appeal. It is an integral part of the record, and its presentation as evidence was unnecessary. The provincial fiscal’s information in the appellate court was superfluous.
(b) On the ordinance, courts of first instance take judicial notice of municipal ordinances in force within their jurisdiction. Thus, no proof of its existence was required.
(c) On prescription, the delay of two months and six days in filing the information did not constitute voluntary and unjustified abandonment of the proceedings. Under the Revised Penal Code, prescription is interrupted by the filing of the complaint and only runs anew if the proceedings are unjustifiably paralyzed through no fault of the accused. No such abandonment was shown.

AI Generated by Armztrong.