Division, Rico Lipao, and Rickson Lipao, respondents. Facts of the Case: On October 21, 1991, Rico Lipao and Rickson Lipao were found in possession of 8 pieces of round timbers and 160 bundles of firewood with a market value of Php 3,100.00. Having failed to show the necessary license to transportthe aforementioned forest products, Rico Lipao and Rickson Lipao were accused of violating Section 68 ofPresidential Decree No. 705 as amended by Executive Order No. EO 277. Accordingly, the offense charged is punishable by Prision Correcional in its medium period is imprisonment from 2 years, 4 months and 1 day up to 4years and 2 months. While on its maximum, Prision Correcional is imprisonment from 4 years, 2 months and 1 dayup to 6 years. The Surigao City RTC Branch 32 found private respondents guilty beyond reasonable doubt of theoffense charged.The private respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals. They argued that private respondent Rickson wassubjected to an illegal search and seizure of the round posts and firewood which cannot be used as evidence againsthim. Moreover, private respondents argued that the prosecution failed to prove their lack of license to possesstimber. They contended that since private respondent Rico is merely the owner of the pumpboat and was not presentwhen the posts and firewood were seized, he could never be held liable for illegal possession of timber as he wasnever in possession of the round posts.Amidst the proceedings in this criminal case docketed as Criminal Case No, 551 and before the Surigao City RTCBranch 32 rendered its judgment, RA 7691. This expanded the exclusive original jurisdiction of MTCs and MCTCsin criminal cases to cover all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six years irrespective of theamount fine. This is the reason why on June 13, 2002, the Court of Appeals granted the appeal of privaterespondents and dismissing the case before it on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of RTC despite the fact that theissue of jurisdiction was never raised by the private respondents. Issue: Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the criminal case against private respondents despite the effectivity ofRA 7691. Ruling: The petition was granted. The assailed CA decision was revised and set aside. The CA was directed to resolve theappeal of private respondents on the merits and with dispatch. It has been held as a general rule that the jurisdictionof a court to try a criminal case is to be determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action.Where a court has already obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdiction to proceed to thefinal determination of the cause is not affected by new legislation placing jurisdiction over such proceedings inanother tribunal.
Jurisdiction attached upon the commencement of the action could not be
ousted by the passage ofR.A. 7691 reapportioning the jurisdiction of inferior courts, the application of which to criminal cases is, to stress, prospective in nature. Thus, where private respondents had been charges with illegal logging punishable underArticles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code, the RTC clearly has jurisdiction at the inception of the criminalcase.Source: (People of the Philippines vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, 12th Division, Rico Lipao and RicksonLipao, 2008) URL: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/154557.htm