G.R. No. L‑6399
October 6 1910

Facts
Jacinto Davis was convicted of estafa in the Municipal Court of Manila and sentenced to six months’ arresto mayor. He appealed, contending that the Municipal Court lacked jurisdiction because the penalty provided for the offense exceeded the six‑month limit set by Section 40, Act No. 183 of the Philippine Commission. The Court of First Instance affirmed a conviction for “estafa‑embezzlement” and imposed a longer term of imprisonment. Davis filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus before the Supreme Court, arguing that both the Municipal Court and the Court of First Instance were without jurisdiction over the crime charged, since the complaint described only estafa (the fraudulently obtaining of six boxes of milk) and did not allege embezzlement.

Issue
Whether the Municipal Court of Manila and, consequently, the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction to try and sentence Davis for the crime of estafa when the penalty prescribed exceeds six months’ imprisonment and the complaint does not allege embezzlement.

Ruling
1. Municipal Court jurisdiction is limited by Section 40, Act No. 183 to criminal offenses punishable by not more than six months’ imprisonment or a fine of ₱200.
2. The Municipal Court does not have concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance over estafa unless the offense is legally characterized as embezzlement, which the complaint did not allege.
3. Because the complaint charged only estafa and the penalty under Article 534 of the Penal Code exceeds six months, the Municipal Court lacked jurisdiction; consequently, the Court of First Instance also lacked jurisdiction to affirm the conviction.
4. The conviction and sentence are therefore void, and the petitioner must be released.

The Supreme Court granted the petition for habeas corpus and ordered the immediate release of Jacinto Davis, without costs.