Sia vs.

People
G.R. No. 159659
Quisumbing, J.

Facts:

-Petitioners spouses Sia were charged before the RTC Naga City with 3 counts of
violation of Sec. 17 of PD 957, also known as the Subdivision and Condominium
Buyer's Protective Decree.

-Petitioners contested the information asserting that, first, the trial court had
no jurisdiction over the offense charged, second, the City Prosecutors Office had
no authority to file information.

-trial court denied the motion from the petitioners and proceeded with the
arraignment with an a counsel de oficio appointed by the court for the petitioners.

-Petitioners filed for Certiorari before the CA, but the latter dismissed the
petition.

-Petitioners were now before the SC contending that P.D. no. 957 was only
applicable to residential subdivision and condominium projects not to commercial
subdivision projects, and that the property involved in the case had been
registered as latter in City Ordinance no. 93-041 and Resolution 93-261.
respondent maintained that the project was classified as socialized housing/
residential in accordance with Zoning Ordinance of Naga City. Also, the petitioners
insisted that the City Prosecutors Office had no jurisdiction over the offense.
Lastly the Petitioners aver that they were deprived of their right to counsel when
the RTC Naga appointed a counsel de officio for them

Issue:

1. Whether or not the City Prosecutors office and RTC have the authority to file
the information against the Petitioners in the case at bar

Held:

1. Yes, the case was within the jurisdiction of RTC and the City Prosecutor was
indeed authorized to file information against the Petitioners on the violation of
PD 957. The court held that the jurisdiction of the court or agency was determined
by the allegations in the complaint. It cannot be made to depend on the defenses
made by the defendant in his Answer or Motion to Dismiss. If such were the rule,
the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on the defendant. Most
importantly, The informations rest the cause of action on the petitioners failure
to register the Contracts to Sell in accordance with Section 17 of P.D. No. 957.
The penalty
imposable is a fine of not more than Twenty Thousand Pesos and/or imprisonment of
not more
than ten years.
[13]
Once again, clearly, the offense charged is well within the jurisdiction of the
trial court.