G.R. No. L-39863 May 29, 1975
MANUEL GARCIA, GENY GARCIA, and RODOLFO CRISMUNDO, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE TOMAS R. LEONIDAS, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAPIZ, BRANCH III, respondent.

FACTS

On October 10, 1973, an Information for Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code was filed against petitioners Manuel Garcia, Geny Garcia, and Rodolfo Crismundo. The charge alleged that on April 28, 1973, in Sapian, Capiz, the accused, conspiring and armed with stones and a wooden club, attacked and killed Mansueto Abayon. The petitioners pleaded not guilty, and trial commenced in the Court of First Instance.
After a prosecution witness testified, respondent Judge Tomas R. Leonidas issued an Order dated September 6, 1974, motu proprio desisting from the trial. He ruled that the case fell within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Military Tribunal pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 9. Consequently, he ordered the records remitted to the military. The petitioners filed motions for reconsideration, arguing the civil court retained jurisdiction, but these were denied by the respondent Judge in Orders dated October 7 and November 11, 1974, which reiterated the lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in motu proprio dismissing the Murder case and relinquishing jurisdiction to a military tribunal.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari and set aside the respondent Judge’s orders. The legal logic is clear and multi-faceted. First, jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the Information. The accusatory pleading specifically charged the petitioners with Murder under the Revised Penal Code, an offense squarely within the original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. There was no allegation that the petitioners violated a presidential decree. The constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation mandates that the facts constituting the crime be stated with precision; the Information here did not charge a violation of PD No. 9 .
Second, the respondent Judge’s construction contravened established procedural rules. A court that has validly acquired jurisdiction cannot divest itself thereof based on a misreading of the charge. Third, the prevailing policy at the time, embodied in General Order No. 49 dated October 4, 1974, aimed to transfer cases back to civil courts. This Order confined military tribunal jurisdiction over PD No. 9 violations specifically to crimes involving illegally possessed firearms and explosives. The Information did not allege the use of such items, mentioning only stones and a club. Therefore, the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case. The Supreme Court directed him to proceed with the trial of Criminal Case No. 209.