GR L 57540; (March, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-57540 March 26, 1982
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner-appellant, vs. JUDGE REGINO T. VERIDIANO II and BRIAN L. MOLLY, respondents-appellees.
FACTS
The City Court of Olongapo City convicted Brian L. Molly of estafa involving P6,000 and sentenced him to imprisonment. Molly seasonably appealed. The city judge forwarded the records to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Zambales, treating it as the appellate court. In the CFI, the fiscal moved to dismiss the appeal, contending jurisdiction lay with the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, not the CFI.
Respondent CFI Judge Regino T. Veridano II denied the motion to dismiss. He then rendered a decision on the merits, reversing the city court’s judgment. He acquitted Molly, holding his liability was purely civil, and directed him to return the P6,000 to the complainant. The fiscal appealed this CFI decision directly to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance had appellate jurisdiction to review the city court’s decision convicting the accused of estafa involving P6,000.
RULING
No, the CFI had no appellate jurisdiction; its judgment of acquittal was void for having been rendered coram non judice (by a court without jurisdiction). The legal logic is anchored on the applicable statutes governing the appellate jurisdiction over city court decisions. The estafa case fell within the concurrent original jurisdiction of the city court and the CFI under the Judiciary Act. However, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 5967 , which governs appeals from city courts, explicitly provides that decisions in criminal cases (except those punishable by arresto mayor or imprisonment not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding P200, or violations of city ordinances) are directly appealable to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court in accordance with rules applicable to appeals from CFI judgments. The instant estafa case, with a penalty exceeding arresto mayor, did not belong to the excepted categories. Therefore, Molly’s appeal from the city court’s decision should have been lodged directly with the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, not with the CFI. Consequently, the CFI’s assumption of appellate power and its subsequent decision, including the acquittal, were null and void for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court set aside the void judgment and ordered the records transmitted to the Court of Appeals for proper adjudication of the accused’s appeal.