SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 081 24/07/2021, 5*55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 081 24/07/2021,
07/2021, 5*55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 081
VOL. 81, JANUARY 17, 1978
People vs. Villaraza
* Criminal law; Penalties; Increase in penalty for estafa by means
No. L-46228. January 17, 1978.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.
HON. ROLANDO R. VILLARAZA (as City Judge of
Cagayan de Oro City), and CAESAR PUERTO,
respondents.
Courts; Jurisdiction; City court with original jurisdiction over
estafa punishable by arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional
minimum; Reasons:·The case was properly filed with the city court
which has original jurisdiction over it. The estafa imputed to the
accused is punishable under article 315 of the Revised Penal Code
by arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum or four
months and one day to two years and four months. The city court
has original jurisdiction over the case because the penultimate
paragraph of section 87 of the Judiciary Law, as amended by
Republlic Acts Nos. 2613 and 3828, provides that „judges of city
courts shall have like jurisdiction as the Court of First Instance to
try parties charged with an offense committed within their
respective jurisdictions, in which the penalty provided by law does
not exceed prision correccional or imprisonment for not more than
six years or fine not ex-
______________
*SECOND DIVISION
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ad7f3176bab284373000d00d40059004a/p/APJ852/?username=Guest
24/07/2021, 5*55 PM
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Villaraza
ceeding six thousand pesos or both.‰ As section 87 itself shows, that
jurisdiction is concurrent with the Court of First Instance which is
95 empowered to try „all criminal cases in which the penalty provided
by law is imprisonment for more than six months, or a fine of more
than two hundred pesos.‰
of issuing bouncing checks effected by Presidential Decree 818 on
October 22, 1975 of no retroactive application; Reasons.·The
penalty of prision mayor medium, or eight years and one day to ten
years, imposed by Presidential Decree No. 818, applies only to
swindling by means of issuing bouncing checks which was
committed on or after October 22, 1975. That increased penalty
does not apply to estafa committed on October 16, 1974. To apply it
to the accused would make the decree an ex post facto law. Its
retroactive application is prohibited by articles 21 and 22 of the
Revised Penal Code and section 12, Article IV of the Constitution.
PETITION for certiorari from an order of the City Court of
Cagayan de Oro City.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Francisco P. Rabanes, Edgardo Y. Raagas, Casiano A.
Gamotin, Jr., Office of the City Fiscal of Cagayan de Oro
City for petitioner.
Eric Menchavez for respondent Caesar Puerto.
AQUINO, J.:
This case is about the jurisdiction of a city court in estafa
cases.
On December 3, 1975 an assistant city fiscal charged
Caesar Puerto with estafa in the city court of Cagayan de
Oro City for having issued on October 16, 1974 two
bouncing checks for the total sum of P4,966.63 (Criminal
Case No. 32140).
City Judge Rolando R. Villaraza in his order dated
96 March 31, 1976 noted that the accused had waived the
second stage of the preliminary investigation. He directed
that the case be elevated, for trial, to the Court of First
Page 1 of 6 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ad7f3176bab284373000d00d40059004a/p/APJ852/?username=Guest Page 2 of 6
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 081
Instance or the Circuit Criminal Court.
VOL. 81, JANUARY 17, 1978
People vs. Villaraza
Upon petition of the prosecution, the Court of First
Instance of Misamis Oriental, Cagayan de Oro Branch
VIII, in its order of February 3, 1977 returned the case to
the city court because in its opinion the case falls within
the concurrent jurisdiction of the two courts and, the city
court, as the first court which took cognizance of the case,
should try it.
Disagreeing with the Court of First Instance, respondent
city judge in his order of April 21, 1977 directed the re-
elevation of the case. His view is that the case falls within
the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court of First
Instance because estafa committed by the accused is
punishable by prision mayor medium under Presidential
Decree No. 818 which took effect on October 22, 1975 and
which amended article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.
That order of respondent judge is assailed in the petition
for certiorari filed in this Court on May 27, 1977 by the
office of the city fiscal of Cagayan de Oro City.
We hold that the case was properly filed with the city
court which has original jurisdiction over it. The estafa
imputed to Caesar Puerto is punishable under article 315
of the Revised Penal Code by arresto mayor maximum to
prision correccional minimum or four months and one day
to two years and four months.
The penalty of prision mayor medium, or eight years
and one day to ten years, imposed by Presidential Decree
No. 818, applies only to swindling by means of issuing
bouncing checks which was committed on or after October
22, 1975.
That increased penalty does not apply to the estafa
committed by Puerto on October 16, 1974. To apply it to
Puerto would make the decree an ex post facto law. Its
retroactive application is prohibited by articles 21 and 22 of
the Revised Penal Code and section 12, Article IV of the
Constitution.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ad7f3176bab284373000d00d40059004a/p/APJ852/?username=Guest
24/07/2021, 5*55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 081 24/07/2021, 5*55 PM
The city court has original jurisdiction over the case
because the penultimate paragraph of section 87 of the
97
Judiciary Law, as amended by Republic Acts Nos. 2613 and
3828, provides that „judges of city courts shall have like
97 jurisdiction as the Court of First Instance to try parties
charged with an offense committed within their respective
jurisdictions, in which the penalty provided by law does not
exceed prision correccional or
98
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Villaraza
imprisonment for not more than six years or fine not
exceeding six thousand pesos or both.‰
As section 87 itself shows, that jurisdiction is concurrent
with the Court of First Instance which is empowered to try
„all criminal cases in which the penalty provided by law is
imprisonment for more than six months, or a fine of more
than two hundred pesos‰ (Sec. 44[f], Judiciary Law. See
People vs. Nazareno, L-40037, April 30, 1976, 70 SCRA
531).
It was not necessary for the city court to have conducted
the preliminary investigation of the case. The filing of the
information by the fiscal presupposes that he had
conducted the requisite preliminary investigation pursuant
to Rule 112 of the Rules of Court and Republic Act No.
5180, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 77.
WHEREFORE, the order of the Court of First Instance,
returning the case to the city court, is affirmed and the two
orders of the respondent city judge, elevating the case to
the Court of First Instance, are set aside. The city court is
directed to try the case. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio and
Concepcion Jr., JJ., concur.
Santos, J., is on leave.
Order affirmed and the two orders set aside.
Page 3 of 6 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ad7f3176bab284373000d00d40059004a/p/APJ852/?username=Guest Page 4 of 6
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 081 24/07/2021, 5*55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 081 24/07/2021, 5*55 PM

Notes.·The execution of a promissory note after

committing a crime of estafa does not extinguish oneÊs
criminal liability. (Torres vs. People, 39 SCRA 28).
That the value of the jeep together with the unpaid
rentals claimed might give a total amount in excess of the
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
jurisdictional amount for the Municipal Court did not take
the case out of its jurisdiction, the unpaid rentals being a
mere incident of the main action. (Racaza vs. De Ocampo,
37 SCRA 190).
A circuit criminal judge who inhibits himself from trying
a case may transfer the case to the regular courts of first
instance where he holds court. (Umale vs. Villaluz, 51
SCRA 84).

99

VOL. 81, JANUARY 18, 1978 99

Philippine Match Co., Ltd. vs. City of Cebu

The Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction over

admiralty cases irrespective of the amount involved. (Sta.
Ana Hardware & Co. vs. „Y‰ Shipping Corporation, 64
SCRA 654).
A property owner divested of his vessel for violation of
customs laws should appeal the decision of the Collector of
Customs to the Commissioner of Customs and not apply for
replevin from the regular courts. (Daud vs. Collector of
Customs, 68 SCRA 157).
The Court of First Instance is without authority to
restrain or enjoin acts being perpetrated or will be
perpetrated outside the territorial boundaries of its
province and district. (Paper Industries Corporation of the
Philippines vs. Samson, 68 SCRA 294).
The fact of existence of civil courts does not militate
against the jurisdiction of military tribunals. The military
commission established under General Order No. 49 has
jurisdiction to hear cases against civilians during the
period of martial law. (Aquino, Jr. vs. Military Commission
No. 2, 63 SCRA 546).

··o0o··

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ad7f3176bab284373000d00d40059004a/p/APJ852/?username=Guest Page 5 of 6 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ad7f3176bab284373000d00d40059004a/p/APJ852/?username=Guest Page 6 of 6