PEOPLE v.

MARIANO
Munoz Palma, J. 30 June 1976 L-40527

Doctrine Jurisdiction, defined:

- From the Latin words "juris" and "dico" — "I speak by the law" — which means: the power or capacity given
by the law to a court or tribunal to entertain, hear, and determine certain controversies.
- Bouvier's definition: the right of a Judge to pronounce a sentence of the law in a case or issue before him,
acquired through due process of law; the authority by which judicial officers take cognizance of and decide
cases.
- In Herrera vs. Barretto (1913): the authority to hear and determine a cause; the right to act in a case.
- Also, the right to put the wheels of justice in motion and to proceed to the final determination of a cause
upon the pleadings and evidence.

Rule in People vs. Fontanilla: The jurisdiction of a court is determined by the statute in force at the time of
the commencement of the action. (In this case: the Judiciary Act of 1948.)

Criminal Jurisdiction: the authority to hear and try a particular offense and impose the punishment for it.

Summary Mariano questioned being charged with estafa before CFI after already being found guilty for malversation
before a military court. SC held that CFI had jurisdiction over the estafa case. Moreover, military courts did
not have jurisdiction over estafa and malversation cases.

Facts - There were two cases filed against Hermogenes Mariano. He was found guilty and sentenced before a
Military Commission for malversation of public property. He was later on charged with estafa (of goods valued
at not more than 6000 Pesos) before CFI Bulacan.

- He filed a motion to quash the Information accusing him of estafa, which CFI Judge Geraldez granted.

- Hence this petition for Certiorari questioning the Order granting the motion to quash.

Issues/ W/N civil courts and military commissions exercise concurrent jurisdiction over the estafa case (NO)
Ratio ● Estafa and malversation are two separate and distinct offenses.
● Moreover, this is not a situation involving two tribunals with concurrent jurisdiction.
● The CFI has original jurisdiction over this case. Under Sec. 44 (f) of the Judiciary Act of 1948 (which
was not affected by any presidential issuances under Martial Law) states: “Courts of First Instance
shall have original jurisdiction in all criminal cases in which the penalty provided by law is
imprisonment for more than six months, or a fine of more than 200 pesos.”
● The Military Commission does not have jurisdiction over this case. General Order No. 49 (October 4,
1974) redefines the jurisdiction of military tribunals over certain offenses, and estafa and
malversation are not among those enumerated therein.

Holding Appealed Order is set aside, and CFI Judge Geraldez is directed to proceed with the trial of the estafa case.

Prepared by: Bernise Carolino