Case: People vs.

Villaraza 81 SCRA 95
G.R. No.: L-46228
Date: January 17, 1978

Procedural Antecedent:
This case is a petition for certiorari from an order of the City
Court of Cagayan de Oro City dated May 27, 1977 for the elevation of
the case to the Court of First Instance to take jurisdiction over the
case of estafa. The Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental of
Cafayan de Oro Branch VIII disagreed and returned case to the City
Court. The City Court disagreed, hence, this petition.

Facts of the case:

On October 16, 1974, Caesar Puerto issued two bouncing checks
for the total sum of P4,966.93. On December 3, 1975, an assistant city
fiscal charged respondent with estafa. City Judge Rolando R. Villaraza
in his order dated March 31, 1976 noted that the accused waived the
second stage of the preliminary investigation and directed that the
case be elevated to the Court of First Instance of the Circuit Criminal
Court.
The Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental, Cagayan de Oro
Branch VIII, in its order dated February 3, 1977 ordered the return of
the case to the city court because in its opinion the case falls within
the concurrent jurisdiction of the two court and the city court, as the
first court, to which took cognizance of the case should try it.
Respondent city judge disagreed and in this order of April 21,
1977 directed the re-elevation of the case. He argues that the case
falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court of First
Instance as estafa committed by the accused is punishable by prision
mayor medium under Presidential Decree 818 which took effect on
October 22, 1975.

Issue:
1. WON PD. 818 should have a retroactive effect on respondent
Caesar Puerto?
 2. WON the Court of First Instance should have jurisdiction over
the case of Caesar Puerto?

Ruling:
No. The act committed by the defendant was committed on
October 16, 1974. Presidential Decree 818 took effect on October 22,
1975. The said decree also only applies to swindling by means of
issuing bouncing checks. Hence, to give such law a retroactive effect
which is not favorable to the accused and will only make the penalty
heavier would only make the decree and ex post facto law.
No. City courts shall try parties charged with an offense, in
which the penalty provided by law does not exceed prision
correccional or imprisonment for not more than six years or fine not
exceeding six thousand pesos or both. Since the case of estafa
imputed to Caesar Puerto is punishable under Article 315 of the
Revised Penal Code by arresto mayor maximum to prision correctional
minimum or four months and one day to two years and four months,
the case shall be returned to the city court.