GR L 6963; (May, 1955) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-6963; May 13, 1955
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. LUIS PADIOS and FILEMON PADIOS, defendant-appellees.
FACTS
On January 28, 1952, the chief of police of Passi, Iloilo, filed a complaint with the Justice of the Peace Court charging Luis Padios and Filemon Padios with frustrated homicide, expressly alleging an “intent to kill.” The defendants pleaded not guilty, waived their right to a preliminary investigation, and requested the case be transmitted to the Court of First Instance for trial, which the justice of the peace court did, as the case was beyond its jurisdiction. On March 27, 1953, the provincial fiscal filed an information for frustrated homicide, alleging the defendants, armed with bolos and with deliberate intent, assaulted Saturnino Padrones, performing all acts of execution that would have produced death but did not due to timely medical assistance, and that the injuries would require over two months to heal, cause lifelong incapacity, and permanent deformities. Upon arraignment, the defendants pleaded not guilty and later filed a motion to quash, contending the facts in the information did not constitute frustrated homicide and thus the Court of First Instance lacked jurisdiction. The lower court sustained the motion, holding the information omitted the specific words “intent to kill,” and ordered the case returned to the justice of the peace for trial. The provincial fiscal appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction over the case, considering the allegations in the information and the nature of the offense charged.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s order. It held that the information sufficiently alleged frustrated homicide. The intent to kill could be clearly inferred from the averment that the accused performed all acts of execution “which would have produced the death.” Furthermore, even assuming the case involved an assault where intent to kill was not charged, the Court of First Instance still had concurrent jurisdiction with the justice of the peace court because the information alleged serious physical injuries punishable by arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum, which falls under the original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. The Court cited People vs. Palmon, which established that such cases are within the concurrent original jurisdiction of both courts. Additionally, the justice of the peace court’s prior assumption of jurisdiction was only for preliminary investigation, not for trial on the merits; thus, it did not acquire exclusive jurisdiction to try the case. The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.