7/11/2019 G.R. No. L-47448 May 17, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMETERIO C.

ERIO C. OCAYA : MAY 1978 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUD…

| chanrobles.com™
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™

Tweet
Like 0 Share

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1978 > May 1978 Decisions > G.R. No. L-47448 May 17, 1978 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMETERIO C. OCAYA:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

DebtKollect Company, Inc.
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-47448. May 17, 1978.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HON. EMETERIO C. OCAYA, as District Judge,
15th Judicial District, Branch VI, Province of Bukidnon, and ESTERLINA MARAPAO, LETICIA
MARAPAO and DIOSDADO MARAPAO, Respondents.
Arcadio D. Fabria and Camilo E. Tamin, Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Malaybalay, Bukidnon
for Petitioner.
Eusebio P. Aquino for Private Respondents.
SYNOPSIS
A charge of serious physical injuries was filed against private respondents but the trial judge after
scanning the records and noting that the medical certificate stated that the injuries would require medical
attention from seven (7) to ten (10) days and therefore may either be slight or less serious physical
injuries only and without receiving the evidence or hearing the witnesses, precipitately dismissed the
information for lack of jurisdiction on the erroneous notion that in physical injury cases, the duration of
the treatment of the injury inflicted on the victim as indicated in the medical certificate determines the
jurisdiction of the court.
The motion for reconsideration having been denied, the fiscal filed the petition for certiorari.
The Supreme Court holding that the allegations of the information determine the jurisdiction of the court,
nullified the questioned orders and ordered the remand of the case for further proceedings to another
branch of the same Court of First Instance since it is doubtful that the State and offended party may
expect a fair and impartial hearing and determination of the case in view of the respondent’s erroneous
pre-conceptions and pre-delictions which had adversely prejudged the case for serious physical injuries
as one merely of slight or less serious physical injuries.
SYLLABUS
1. COURTS; JURISDICTION; MEDICAL CERTIFICATE; DURATION OF TREATMENT OF THE INJURY AS
INDICATED IN THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DOES NOT CONFER JURISDICTION UPON THE COURT. —
Respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in precipitately dismissing the case for alleged
lack of jurisdiction on the mere basis of his totally wrong notion that what governs in the filing of a
physical injury case is the medical certificate regarding the duration of treatment and "not what the
victim declares because the same is self-serving." cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ALLEGATIONS OF THE INFORMATION VEST JURISDICTION UPON THE COURT. — It
is elemental that the jurisdiction of a court in criminal cases is determined by the allegations of the
information or criminal complaint and not by the result of the evidence presented at the trial, much less
by the trial judge’s personal appraisal of the affidavits and exhibits attached by the fiscal to the record of
ChanRobles Intellectual Property the case without hearing the parties and their witnesses nor receiving their evidence at a proper trial.
Division
3. ID.; ID.; JURISDICTION ONCE VESTED CANNOT BE OUSTED BY THE FACT THAT WHAT HAS BEEN

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1978maydecisions.php?id=137 1/4
7/11/2019 G.R. No. L-47448 May 17, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMETERIO C. OCAYA : MAY 1978 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUD…
G.R. No. L-25265 May 9, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. SOCORRO C. RAMOS
G.R. No. L-32547 May 9, 1978 - CONCHITA
CORTEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-27350-51 May 11, 1978 - WIL
WILHEMSEN, INC., ET AL. v. TOMAS BALUYUT
G.R. No. L-29217 May 11, 1978 - MARIA CRISTINA
FERTILIZER PLANT EMPLOYEES ASSOC., ET AL. v.
TEODULO C. TANDAYAG, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-32959 May 11, 1978 - JAGUAR
TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., ET AL. v. JUAN
CORNISTA, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. L-38663 and L-40740 May 11, 1978 -
JOSE BRIONES, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-39958 May 11, 1978 - JESUS D.
JUREIDINI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-41753 May 11, 1978 - JOSE V. HERRERA
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-43213 May 11, 1978 - SOCORRO T.
AGUILAR v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-43512 May 11, 1978 - ROSALIA VDA. DE
RANDOY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-47570-71 May 11, 1978 - MONARK
INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-31298 May 12, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. RAMON BLANCO, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-32529 May 12, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. TY SUI WONG, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-45768 May 12, 1978 - DEMETRIO D.
MOLET v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-47494 May 15, 1978 - AIDA ROBLES v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-27800 May 16, 1978 - PHILIPPINE
CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE v. ARSENIO OLMOS,
ET AL.
G.R. No. L-38006 May 16, 1978 - NATALIA DE LAS
ALAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-47448 May 17, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. EMETERIO C. OCAYA
A.C. No. 301 May 18, 1978 - BENITO SACO v.
DONATO A. CARDONA
G.R. No. L-24375 May 18, 1978 - TAN BENG v. CITY
SHERIFF OF MANILA, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-27155 May 18, 1978 - PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1978maydecisions.php?id=137
PROVED BY THE EVIDENCE IS AN OFFENSE BEYOND THE COURT’S JURISDICTION. — It is elementary
that the mere fact that the evidence presented at the trial would indicate that a lesser offense outside the
trial court’s jurisdiction was committed does not deprive the trial court of its jurisdiction which had vested
in it under the allegations of the information as filed since" (once the jurisdiction attaches to the person
and subject matter of the litigation, the subsequent happening of events, although they are of such a
character as would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance, will not operate to
past jurisdiction already attached." cralaw virtua1aw library
4. ID.; DUTY; DUTY OF TRIAL COURTS TO PROPERLY STUDY CASES BEFORE IT. — Trial courts are duty
bound to proceed with proper study and circumspection before summarily dismissing cases duly filed
within their court’s jurisdiction so as not to needlessly burden the appellate courts with cases. Judges
should know that it is an established rule that where the information for serious physical injuries properly
vested his court with jurisdiction to try and hear the case, but if from the evidence submitted a lesser
offense was established, he equally has jurisdiction to impose the sentence for such lesser offense.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGES; TRANSFER OF ACTION; TRIAL COURT’S PRE-
JUDGMENT OF THE CASE, GROUND FOR TRANSFERRING CASE TO ANOTHER BRANCH OF THE SAME
COURT. — Respondent judge’s actions and premature and baseless declaration that the victim’s
declaration as to the period of her incapacity is "self-serving" raise serious doubts as to whether the
State and the offended party may expect a fair and impartial hearing and determination of the case from
him, since seemingly with his erroneous preconceptions and predilections, he has adversely prejudged
their case as one merely of slight or less serious physical injuries, necessitates the transfer of the case to
another court presided by another judge.
D E C I S I O N
TEEHANKEE, J.:
The Court declares the questioned orders of respondent judge dismissing the information for supposed
lack of jurisdiction as null and void. Respondent judge wrongfully dismissed the case before him in
disregard to the elemental rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the information and
that the offense of serious physical injuries charged in the information had duly vested his court with
jurisdiction. The Court orders the transfer of the case below to another branch of the Bukidnon court of
first instance, since it is doubtful that the State and offended party may expect a fair and impartial
hearing and determination of the case from respondent judge who with his erroneous preconceptions and
predilections has adversely prejudged their case for serious physical injuries as one merely of slight or
less serious physical injuries.
The office of the provincial fiscal of Bukidnon, after preliminary investigation filed an information dated
October 13, 1977 in the court of respondent judge, charging the three private respondents-accused
(Esterlina Marapao, Leticia Marapao and Diosdado Marapao) for serious physical injuries committed as
follows:
chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
"That on or about the 23rd day of July, 1977, in Don Carlos, Bukidnon, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually
helping each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use
personal violence upon one Mrs. LOLITA ARES, a mother who was then still on the twelfth (12th) day
from her child delivery, by then and there wrestling her to the ground and thereafter throwing and hitting
her with a fist-size stone at the face thereby inflicting upon said Mrs. LOLITA ARES: —
‘lacerated wound, transverse right at about 2.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. in width at the level of the maxillary arch
of the face, with contusion and swelling all around the inflicted area’
which injury considerably deforms her face, and further causing upon said Mrs. LOLITA ARES to suffer a
relapse (nabughat in the local dialect) arising from her weak constitution due to her recent child delivery,
which relapse incapacitated her from performing her customary labor for a period of more than thirty
days.
"Contrary to and in violation of Article 263, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code." cralaw virtua1aw library
The records do not show that arraignment or trial on the merits has been held much less that warrants
for the arrest of the accused had been issued. Instead after "scanning the records of (the) case" and
noting that the thereto attached medical certificate stated that the injuries suffered by the victim Lolita
Ares would require medical attention from 7 to 10 days and, therefore, "may either be slight or less
serious physical injuries only" contrary to victim’s affidavit that she was incapacitated from her
customary labor for more than 30 days and the fiscal’s findings as to the prominent scar left on the
victim’s face as a result "which considerably deforms her face" (as duly alleged in the information),
respondent judge motu proprio ordered the dismissal of the case "as the crime of slight or less physical
injury is not within the jurisdiction of the court" as per his Order of October 27, 1977, stating as his
reason that: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The Court is of the opinion that what governs in the filing of a physical injury case is the certificate
issued by the physician regarding the duration of treatment, and not what the victim declares because
the same is self-serving." cralaw virtua1aw library
The fiscal’s motion for reconsideration proved futile with respondent judge in his Order of November 16,
1977 denying the same, evaluating the case without having heard the parties or their witnesses
(particularly the physician who issued the medical certificate) nor having received their evidence and
ruling against the deformity alleged in the information on the basis of his perception from a reading of
the medical certificate and the fiscal’s written resolution finding proper basis for the filing of the
information, that: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Now, does the finding of the fiscal to the effect that he observed a big scar at the left cheek bone of Mrs.
Lolita Ares justify the filing of the charge of serious physical injuries, under Article 263 of the Revised
Penal Code, when the attending physician certified that what he found was a lacerated wound on the
right side of the face? Clearly, the scar found by the investigating fiscal could not be the result of the acts
imputed to the accused but for some other cause, for how could the scar be found on the left side when
the injury inflicted was on the right side?" *
Hence, the petition at bar as filed by the provincial fiscal for nullification of respondent judge’s orders.
The Solicitor General in his comment has noted that there is ample legal and factual basis for the
information charging serious physical injuries, stating that" (T)hat the allegations in the Information that
a fist-size stone hit the face of Lolita Ares causing lacerated wound on the maxillary arch of the face
which considerably deformed her face (are) not only supported by the medical certificate, but also by the
admission of accused Diosdado Marapao during the preliminary investigation that he threw a fist- size
stone which hit the face of Lolita Ares and the personal finding of Fiscal Tamin during the preliminary
investigation that there is a prominent scar on her face," and that the offense as charged falls under
Article 263, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code which imposes thereon a penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods and is therefore properly cognizable by respondent
2/4
7/11/2019 G.R. No. L-47448 May 17, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMETERIO C. OCAYA : MAY 1978 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUD…
judge’s court.
chanrobles virtuallawlibrary

G.R. No. L-27732 May 18, 1978 - ANGELES

CHIQUILLO, ET AL. v. ELIAS B. ASUNCION, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-28454 May 18, 1978 - EMILIO
APACHECHA, ET AL. v. VALERIO V. ROVIRA, ET AL.
The Court finds that respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in precipitately dismissing
the case for alleged lack of jurisdiction on the mere basis of his totally wrong notion that what governs in
the filing of a physical injury case is the medical certificate regarding the duration of treatment and "not
what the victim declares because the same is self-serving." cralaw virtua1aw library

G.R. No. L-29276 May 18, 1978 - TESTATE ESTATE

OF FELIX J. DE GUZMAN v. CRISPINA DE GUZMAN-
CARILLO, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-29466 May 18, 1978 - ABOITIZ AND CO.,
INC., ET AL. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF CEBU
G.R. No. L-34770 May 18, 1978 - SAURA IMPORT &
EXPORT CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-40885 May 18, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. MARCIAL GARGOLES
G.R. No. L-44351 May 18, 1978 - HOECHST
PHILIPPINES, INC. v. FRANCISCO TORRES, ET AL.
A.C. No. L-1768 May 19, 1978 - ANGELES G.
DACANAY v. CONRADO B. LEONARDO, SR.
It is elemental that the jurisdiction of a court in criminal cases is determined by the allegations of the
information or criminal complaint and not by the result of the evidence presented at the trial, 1 much
less by the trial judge’s personal appraisal of the affidavits and exhibits attached by the fiscal to the
record of the case without hearing the parties and their witnesses nor receiving their evidence at a
proper trial.
It is equally elementary that the mere fact that evidence presented at the trial would indicate that a
lesser offense outside the trial court’s jurisdiction was committed does not deprive the trial court of its
jurisdiction which had vested in it under the allegations of the information as filed since" (once) the
jurisdiction attaches to the person and subject matter of the litigation, the subsequent happening of
events, although they are of such a character as would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the
first instance, will not operate to oust jurisdiction already attached." 2
Indeed, the Solicitor General has aptly commented that "the dismissal of the case had only resulted in
duplication of work and wasted time in the remand of records when respondent trial judge dismissed the
instant case for want of jurisdiction, when it could have immediately proceeded to arraign the accused
and try him." cralaw virtua1aw library

G.R. Nos. L-28324-5 May 19, 1978 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL MARCO, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-35093 May 19, 1978 - E.S. BALTAO &
CO., INC. v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-37750 May 19, 1978 - SWEET LINE, INC.
v. BERNARDO TEVES, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-44537 May 26, 1978 - EMMA C. ONA v.
SERAFIN R. CUEVAS
A.M. No. 1530-MJ May 30, 1978 - NENITA
CASTAÑETO v. BUENAVENTURA S. NIDOY
G.R. No. L-32850 May 30, 1978 - ROGELIO
LAFIGUERA, ET AL. v. V. M. RUIZ, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-37162 May 30, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. WARLITO C. PLATEROS
Once more the Court is constrained to admonish the trial courts to proceed with proper study and
circumspection before summarily dismissing cases duly filed within their court’s cognizance and
needlessly burdening the appellate courts with cases such as that at bar which should not have reached
us at all in the first instance. Respondent judge’s disregard of the established rule that the information
for serious physical injuries properly vested his court with jurisdiction to try and hear the case, and that if
from the evidence submitted a lesser offense was established, that he equally had jurisdiction to impose
the sentence for such lesser offense, is difficult of comprehension. Besides, the doctor who issued the
medical certificate had yet to be presented at the trial and conceivably could corroborate the victim’s
testimony that her injuries bad taken longer to heal than had at first been estimated by him as well as
clarify the location of the victim’s facial scar.
Respondent judge’s actions and premature and baseless declaration that the victim’s declaration as to
the period of her incapacity is "self-serving" raise serious doubts as to whether the State and the
offended party may expect a fair and impartial hearing and determination of the case from him, since
seemingly with his erroneous preconceptions and predilections, he has adversely prejudged their case as
one merely of slight or less serious physical injuries. The case below should therefore be transferred to
another court presided by another judge.
chanrobles law library : red

G.R. No. L-38375 May 30, 1978 - ALFONSA TIMBAS ACCORDINGLY, the questioned orders of respondent judge are declared null and void. The case below for
VDA. DE PALOPO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET serious physical injuries is remanded and ordered transferred to Branch V of the court of first instance
AL. below, and the judge presiding the same is ordered to issue the corresponding warrants of arrest and to
proceed with dispatch with the arraignment of the respondents-accused and the trial and determination
G.R. No. L-29262 May 31, 1978 - SALVADOR of the case on the merits. Let copy of this decision be attached to the personal record of respondent
BARENG v. SHINTOIST SHRINE & JAPANESE CHARITY judge. No pronouncement as to costs.
BUREAU
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. L-30355 May 31, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. UNION KAYANAN, ET AL.
Teehankee, Makasiar, Santos, Fernandez and Guerrero, JJ., concur.

G.R. Nos. L-31303-04 May 31, 1978 - REPUBLIC OF
THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
Endnotes:
G.R. No. L-37174 May 31, 1978 - LITTON MILLS
WORKERS UNION-CCLU v. LITTON MILLS, INC., ET
AL. * Emphasis copied.

G.R. No. L-37697. May 31, 1978. 1. People v. Cottiok, 62 Phil. 501, 503; see U.S. v. Mallari, 24 Phil., 366, 368; and People
v. Celis, 101, Phil. 586-590.
SEGUNDO ABANDO v. CA

G.R. No. L-42713 May 31, 1978 - NORBERTA
2. Ramos v. Central Bank, 41 SCRA 565, 583, citing People v. Pegarum..
MARTILLO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

G.R. No. L-43358 May 31, 1978 - PRESENTACION

D. DELANA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, ET AL.
Back to Home | Back to Main
G.R. No. L-43811 May 31, 1978 - CAYETANO
FRANCISCO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, ET AL.
QUICK SEARCH
G.R. No. L-44563 May 31, 1978 - GERONIMO
REALTY COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-47263 May 31, 1978 - HACIENDA 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
DOLORES AGRO-INDUSTRIAL & DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
G.R. No. L-47536 May 31, 1978 - WILLIAM H.
QUASHA v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
COMMISSION, ET AL.
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1978maydecisions.php?id=137 3/4
7/11/2019 G.R. No. L-47448 May 17, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMETERIO C. OCAYA : MAY 1978 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUD…

Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1978maydecisions.php?id=137 4/4