G.R. No. L-45749 August 16, 1985
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. FELICIDAD C. VILLALON, as DISTRICT JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, BRANCH II, DAGUPAN CITY, ALFREDO DE VERA, as MUNICIPAL JUDGE of the MUNICIPAL COURT OF CALASIAO, FRANCISCO SENDAYEN y DE VERA, NICOLAS DOMALANTA y ROSARIO, ROLANDO GONZALES y MACCALAY, EPIFANIO MAMARADLO y DORIA, DANNY MAMARADLO y UMAGTANG, and MARCELO ROY y DE GUZMAN, respondents.

FACTS

A criminal complaint for violation of Article 195 of the Revised Penal Code (gambling) was filed in the Municipal Court of Calasiao, Pangasinan, against several accused. The amended complaint identified Francisco Sendayen as the maintainer-operator, Rolando Gonzales as the banker, and the others as mere bettors in the game “Lucky 9.” The accused moved to quash, arguing that the complaint charged more than one offense, with the bettors’ charges falling under the Municipal Court’s original jurisdiction and the charges against the banker and maintainer, due to higher penalties, falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. They contended that separate complaints should have been filed.
The Municipal Judge, respondent Alfredo de Vera, issued an order directing the prosecution to either amend the information to exclude the banker and maintainer or proceed to trial only against the bettors. The prosecution, through Assistant Provincial Fiscal Alicia G. Decano (with the People later substituted as petitioner), sought certiorari and mandamus in the Court of First Instance, praying that the Municipal Court be ordered to conduct a preliminary investigation and then remand the entire case to the CFI. Respondent CFI Judge Felicidad C. Villalon dismissed the petition, upholding the Municipal Judge’s order and reasoning that the cases could be separated due to the different imposable penalties.

ISSUE

Whether the Municipal Court of Calasiao has jurisdiction to try a single gambling case against all accused, including the banker and maintainer, despite the variance in penalties prescribed for their respective roles.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the CFI’s resolution and directed the Municipal Court to proceed with the trial against all accused. The legal logic is anchored on the principle of concurrent jurisdiction and the rule on jurisdiction by priority of filing. Under Section 87(b) of the Judiciary Act of 1948, gambling is one of the offenses over which municipal courts and courts of first instance have concurrent jurisdiction when the penalty exceeds six months imprisonment or a fine of P200. There is no maximum penalty limit for this concurrent jurisdiction over the enumerated crimes.
Consequently, the Municipal Court had jurisdiction over the entire case against all accused, regardless of the fact that the penalties for the banker and maintainer were higher than those for the bettors. Its jurisdiction was independent of the penalty. The axiomatic rule is that the court which first acquires jurisdiction over a case excludes other courts. Since the complaint was initially filed in the Municipal Court of Calasiao, that court rightfully acquired jurisdiction to hear and decide the case against all respondents. The prosecution’s contention that the Municipal Court should merely conduct a preliminary investigation and then remand the case was untenable, as the Municipal Court had full authority to try the case on its merits. There was no legal basis for splitting the charges into separate proceedings.