People vs.

Chupeco
G.R. No. L- 19568, March 31, 1964 10 SCRA 640

Facts:

On February 2, 1951 Jose Chupeco was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila
for executing a Chattel Mortgage of the SAWMILL MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT in favor
of Agricultural and Industrial Bank located in Bataan whose capital, assets, accounts, contracts
and chooses in action were subsequently transferred to Rehabilitation Finance Corp. herein
complainant with principal office in Manila.

Thereafter, without having fully satisfied the mortgage and during the term without the
consent of the mortgagee bank and with intent to defraud Rehabilitation Finance Corporation,
pledge and encumber the said property to one Mateo Pinile. Accused moved to quash the
information on the ground that more than one offense is charged and that the court had no
jurisdiction

Issue: Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction over the case

Held:

An essential element common to the two acts punishable by Article 319 of the Revised
Penal Code is that the property removed or repledged should be the same or identical property
that was mortgaged or pledged before such removal of repledging. In the instant case, evidence
fails to show that the properties mortgaged to the bank are the same ones encumbered afterwards
to Mateo Pinile.

The original terms of the charge averred (and it is not disputed) the crime of repledging
already encumbered property without the creditor's consent, and one of the essential ingredients
of the offense (the execution of the first mortgage) having been alleged, to have taken place in
Manila, the court of first instance of that city acquired jurisdiction over the offense under the
Rules of Court (People vs. Mission, 48 O.G., 1331; Rule 110, section 9). It is well-established
that once vested, the jurisdiction is not tolled by subsequent amendment or stipulation (McClain
vs. Kansas City Bridge Co., 83 SW 2d, 132; Shankle vs. Ingram, 45 S.E. 578; Walton vs.
Mardeville Dowling & Co., 5 NW 776), which in this case amounted to no more than an avowal
by the prosecution that it could not establish the other elements of the offense.

On the evidence presented, there is no showing that properties listed in the information as
exhibit D (properties mortgaged to the bank) are the same properties listed in exhibit E
(properties pledge to Mateo Pinile). With these findings Jose Chupeco was acquitted. However,
Court of First Instance of Manila still has jurisdiction over the case. The court held that
jurisdiction of court once vested is not lost by subsequent amendment or stipulation.