GR L 467; (July, 1946) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-467; July 22, 1946
MACARIO RIVERA, petitioner, vs. FRANCISCO GERONIMO, Judge of the Municipal Court of the City of Manila, respondent.
FACTS
The petitioner, Macario Rivera, is one of the accused in a case for attempted theft of property valued at P1,170 pending before the Municipal Court of the City of Manila. He filed a motion to dismiss the case based on the court’s lack of jurisdiction, which was denied. His subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied. Rivera alleges that these two orders are contrary to law. He filed an original petition for certiorari, seeking to have the orders declared null and void and to compel the respondent judge to desist from further proceeding with the case.
ISSUE
Whether the Municipal Court of the City of Manila has jurisdiction over the criminal case for attempted theft where the value of the property involved is P1,170.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition.
The jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of Manila is defined by Section 2468 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 361 . It grants said court exclusive jurisdiction over criminal cases arising under city ordinances or under the penal laws of the Philippines, provided the offense is committed within the city’s police jurisdiction and the maximum punishment is imprisonment for not more than six months, or a fine of not more than two hundred pesos, or both.
For the crime of consummated theft of property valued between P200 and P6,000, Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. For the crime of attempted theft, Article 51 of the same Code provides that the penalty is lower by two degrees than that prescribed for the consummated felony. Applying the rules for graduating penalties (Article 61, Rule 5.a), the penalty for the attempted theft in this case is arresto menor in its maximum period to arresto mayor in its minimum period, or twenty-one (21) days of arresto menor to two months of arresto mayor.
Since the maximum penalty for the offense (two months of arresto mayor) does not exceed six months of imprisonment, the case falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of Manila as prescribed by law. Therefore, the respondent judge did not act without or in excess of jurisdiction in denying the motions to dismiss. Costs were imposed against the petitioner.