G.R. No. L-29396 August 29, 1969
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. ERNESTO P. VALENCIA (Judge, Court of First Instance of Aurora Sub-province), FLORENCIO DAGUMAN, and HON. ARTEMIO N. VILLANUEVA (Acting Municipal Judge, San Luis, Quezon), respondents.

FACTS

The accused, Florencio Daguman, was charged in the municipal court of San Luis in three separate cases for illegal possession of firearms, assault upon an agent of a person in authority, and slander. After a joint trial, the municipal court rendered judgment on July 7, 1964, convicting him of illegal possession of firearms and sentencing him to imprisonment for two years and one day to five years, while dismissing the assault and slander charges. On July 15, 1964, Daguman filed a notice of appeal to the Court of First Instance (CFI). An information was subsequently filed anew in the CFI of Aurora sub-province on October 20, 1964. Before arraignment, Daguman moved to dismiss his appeal, contending that the Court of Appeals, not the CFI, had appellate jurisdiction, citing the case of Esperat v. Avila. On February 12, 1968, respondent Judge Ernesto P. Valencia issued an order dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and directed the return of the case records to the municipal court of origin. Upon receipt, the municipal court set the case for “hearing.” The People, represented by the acting assistant provincial fiscal, filed the present petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to review the CFI’s order of dismissal and the municipal court’s order setting the case for hearing.

ISSUE

Which court has appellate jurisdiction over a decision rendered by an ordinary municipal court (i.e., a municipal court of a municipality which is neither a provincial nor a sub-provincial capital) in a criminal case which is within the concurrent jurisdiction of ordinary municipal courts and courts of first instance?

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that appellate jurisdiction properly pertains to the Court of First Instance. The Court held that while there is a zone of concurrent jurisdiction between municipal courts and CFIs for the crime of illegal possession of firearms under the Judiciary Act, the right of direct appeal to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court is explicitly granted only to decisions of municipal courts of provincial or sub-provincial capitals and city courts exercising like jurisdiction as CFIs under the penultimate paragraph of Section 87(c) of the Judiciary Act, as amended. This right is an exception to the general rule under Section 45 of the Judiciary Act, which vests appellate jurisdiction in CFIs over all cases arising in municipal courts within their respective provinces. Since the municipal court of San Luis is an ordinary municipal court and not a court of record, and the law does not grant a direct appeal from its decisions in concurrent jurisdiction cases, the general rule applies. The cited cases of Esperat v. Avila and Aquino v. Estenzo were distinguished as they involved city courts, where proceedings are recorded and direct appeal is expressly provided by law. Accordingly, the CFI order dismissing the appeal was set aside. The CFI was ordered to give due course to Daguman’s appeal and hear the case de novo. The preliminary injunction was made permanent.