Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Alfredo Cuyos Vs Honorable Nicolas Garcia

    Uploaded by

    Antoniette Maria Lucero
    54 views1 page
    Petitioner was charged with homicide with multiple serious physical injuries and damage to property through reckless imprudence before the Municipal Court of San Fernando, Pampanga. However, before trial could commence, petitioner filed a motion to remand the case to the Court of First Instance for trial, arguing lack of jurisdiction by the municipal court. Petitioner argued that under the Revised Penal Code, the maximum fine for the crime charged would be P54,444.44, exceeding the municipal court's jurisdiction of cases with fines not exceeding P6,000. The issue is which court has jurisdiction over this complex crime. The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction must be lodged with the trial court authorized to impose the most serious penalty for

    Original Description:

    Case digest

    Original Title

    Alfredo Cuyos vs Honorable Nicolas Garcia

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Petitioner was charged with homicide with multiple serious physical injuries and damage to property through reckless imprudence before the Municipal Court of San Fernando, Pampanga. However, before trial could commence, petitioner filed a motion to remand the case to the Court of First Instance for trial, arguing lack of jurisdiction by the municipal court. Petitioner argued that under the Revised Penal Code, the maximum fine for the crime charged would be P54,444.44, exceeding the municipal court's jurisdiction of cases with fines not exceeding P6,000. The issue is which court has jurisdiction over this complex crime. The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction must be lodged with the trial court authorized to impose the most serious penalty for

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    54 views1 page

    Alfredo Cuyos Vs Honorable Nicolas Garcia

    Uploaded by

    Antoniette Maria Lucero
    Petitioner was charged with homicide with multiple serious physical injuries and damage to property through reckless imprudence before the Municipal Court of San Fernando, Pampanga. However, before trial could commence, petitioner filed a motion to remand the case to the Court of First Instance for trial, arguing lack of jurisdiction by the municipal court. Petitioner argued that under the Revised Penal Code, the maximum fine for the crime charged would be P54,444.44, exceeding the municipal court's jurisdiction of cases with fines not exceeding P6,000. The issue is which court has jurisdiction over this complex crime. The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction must be lodged with the trial court authorized to impose the most serious penalty for

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Alfredo Cuyos vs Honorable Nicolas P.

    Garcia
    G.R. No. L-46934, 15 April 1988
    Facts
    Petitioner was chare! "e#ore the $%nicipal &o%rt o# 'an Fernan!o, Pa(pana,
    with ho(ici!e with (%ltiple serio%s ph)sical in*%ries an! !a(ae to propert),
    thro%h rec+less i(pr%!ence.
    ,e#ore trial co%l! co((ence, howe-er, petitioner #ile! on 6 'epte("er 19.. a /
    $otion to Re(an! the &ase to the &o%rt o# First 0nstance #or 1rial/ , allein lac+
    o# *%ris!iction o-er the case on the part o# the $%nicipal &o%rt. Petitioner2s
    ar%(ent was that the a(en!e! cri(inal co(plaint allee! that the 3ol+swaen
    car in-ol-e! in the acci!ent ha! s%##ere! !a(aes a(o%ntin to P18,444.44, an!
    that %n!er pararaph 3, Article 365 o# the Re-ise! Penal &o!e, the cri(e with
    which he was chare! wo%l! carr) a #ine in an a(o%nt ranin #ro( the a(o%nt
    o# the !a(ae to three 536 ti(es the -al%e o# the !a(ae allee! 5i.e. 3 7
    P18,444.44 or P54,444.446. Petitioner %re! in his $otion that "eca%se %n!er
    'ection 8. 5e6 o# the 8%!iciar) Act o# 1948 as a(en!e! 5Rep%"lic Act No. 996 as
    a(en!e!6, the respon!ent $%nicipal &o%rt o# the Pro-incial &apital o#
    Pa(pana, ha! *%ris!iction onl) o-er o##enses p%nisha"le ") a #ine not
    e7cee!in P6,444.44, the case ha! to "e trans#erre! to the &o%rt o# First
    0nstance.
    0ss%e
    :hich co%rt has *%ris!iction o-er this co(ple7 cri(e;
    <el!
    0n co(ple7 cri(es, it is not %nco((on that one constit%ti-e o##ense carries with it
    an a##licti-e penalt) while the other or other constit%ti-e o##enses carr) with the(
    onl) a correctional or e-en a liht penalt). 8%ris!iction o-er the whole co(ple7
    cri(e (%st loicall) "e lo!e! with the trial co%rt ha-in *%ris!iction to i(pose
    the (a7i(%( an! (ost serio%s penalt) i(posa"le on an o##ense #or(in part o#
    the co(ple7 cri(e. A co(ple7 cri(e (%st "e prosec%te! interall), as it were,
    an! not split into its co(ponent o##enses an! the latter (a!e the s%"*ect o#
    (%ltiple in#or(ations possi"l) "ro%ht in !i##erent co%rts.
    'ince the (a7i(%( #ine i(posa"le in the present case is P54,444.44, an! the
    (a7i(%( i(prison(ent i(posa"le 5#or the ho(ici!e thro%h rec+less
    i(pr%!ence6 is si7 566 )ears, clearl), the cri(inal chare in-ol-e! #alls o%tsi!e the
    *%ris!iction o# the $%nicipal 1rial &o%rt an! conse=%entl) within the *%ris!iction o#
    the Reional 1rial &o%rt o# 'an Fernan!o, Pa(pana.

    You might also like