YOH
Secs. 20 & 32, BP 129 as amended by RA 7691
Jurisdiction is measured by the law at the time of the
commencement of criminal action.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. LIBERTAD
LAGON AND HON. JUDGE ISIDRO O. BARRIOS, AS
PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE CITY COURT OF ROXAS CITY,
respondents.
RE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
It is firmly settled doctrine that the subject matter
jurisdiction of a court in criminal law matters is properly
measured by the law in effect at the time of the
commencement of a criminal action, rather than by the law
in effect at the time of the commission of the offense charged.
RE VIOLATION OF THE RULE AGAINST RETROACTIVITY
OF PENAL LAWS
In the first place, subject-matter jurisdiction in criminal
cases is determined by the authority of the court to impose
the penalty imposable under the applicable statute given the
allegations of a criminal information.
The issue here is one of jurisdiction, of a court's legal
competence to try a case ab origine. In criminal prosecutions,
it is settled that the jurisdiction of the court is not
determined by what may be meted out to the offender after
trial, or even by the result of the evidence that would be
presented at the trial, but by the extent of the penalty which
the law imposes for the misdemeanor, crime or violation
charged in the complaint. If the facts recited in the complaint
and the punishment provided for by law are sufficient to
1The law governing the subject matter jurisdiction of municipal and
city courts in criminal cases in 1975 and 1976, "[m]unicipal judges in
the capitals of provinces and sub-provinces and judges of city courts
shall have like jurisdiction as the Court of First Instance to try parties
charged with an offense within their respective jurisdictions, in which
the penalty provided by law does not exceed prision correccional
show that the court in which the complaint is presented has
jurisdiction, that court must assume jurisdiction. Once
jurisdiction is acquired by the court in which the information
is filed, it is retained regardless whether the evidence proves
a lesser offense than that charged in the information
Should the criminal information be refiled in the proper
court, that is, the proper Regional Trial Court, that court may
not impose that more onerous penalty upon private
respondent Libertad LagonBut the Regional Trial Court
would remain vested with subject-matter jurisdiction to try
and decide the (refiled) case even though the penalty properly
imposable, given the date of the commission of the offense
charged, should be the lower penalty originally provided for
which is otherwise within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
City Court of Roxas City.
Facts:
o Information was filed on 7 July 1976 with the City Court of
Roxas City (MTC), against lagon for the crime of estafa. The
accused allegedly issued a check as payment for goods,
knowing that she did not have sufficient funds to cover the
check.
o Trial ensued, however, the court dismissed the information
on the ground that the penalty prescribed by law for the
offense charged was beyond the court's authority to impose.
o The judge held that the jurisdiction of a court to try a
criminal action is determined by the law in force at the time
of the institution of the action, and not by the law in force
at the time of the commission of the crime.
o At the time of the commission of the offense1 in April 1975,
jurisdiction was vested with the city court, but at the time
or imprisonment for not more than six (6) years or fine not
exceeding P6,000.00 or both.
It appears that at the time of the commission of the offense charged
on 5 April 1975, the penalty imposable for the offense charged under
paragraph 2(d) in relation to the third sub-paragraph of the first
paragraph, Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, was arresto mayor
YOH
the criminal action was filed, the Article 315 of the RPC was
amended and the penalty imposable upon a person accused
thereunder increased, which penalty was beyond the City
Court's authority to impose. Hence, its dismissal without
prejudice to its being refiled in the proper court.
Hence, this petition for review.
Issue: WON the city court of Roxas City has jurisdiction over
the criminal case.
Held: No.
Ratio: It is firmly settled doctrine that the subject matter
jurisdiction of a court in criminal law matters is properly
measured by the law in effect at the time of the commencement
of a criminal action, rather than by the law in effect at the time
of the commission of the offense charged. Thus, it is the CFI of
Roxas City which has jurisdiction, considering that P.D. No.
818 had increased the imposable penalty for the offense
charged in Criminal Case No. 7362 to a level in excess of the
maximum penalty which a city court could impose.
Issue (2): Would the application of said doctrine not amount to
disregard of the rule against retroactivity of penal laws?
Held: No.
Ratio: In the first place, subject-matter jurisdiction in criminal
cases is determined by the authority of the court to impose the
penalty imposable under the applicable statute given the
allegations of a criminal information.
The issue here is one of jurisdiction, of a court's legal
competence to try a case ab origine. In criminal prosecutions,
it is settled that the jurisdiction of the court is not determined
by what may be meted out to the offender after trial, or even by
in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period; at that time therefore, the offense clearly fell within the
jurisdiction of the City Court of Roxas City.
the result of the evidence that would be presented at the trial,
but by the extent of the penalty which the law imposes for the
misdemeanor, crime or violation charged in the complaint. If
the facts recited in the complaint and the punishment provided
for by law are sufficient to show that the court in which the
complaint is presented has jurisdiction, that court must
assume jurisdiction. Once jurisdiction is acquired by the court
in which the information is filed, it is retained regardless
whether the evidence proves a lesser offense than that charged
in the information
Should the criminal information be refiled in the proper court,
that is, the proper Regional Trial Court, that court may not
impose that more onerous penalty upon private respondent
Libertad Lagon
But the Regional Trial Court would remain vested with subject-
matter jurisdiction to try and decide the (refiled) case even
though the penalty properly imposable, given the date of the
commission of the offense charged, should be the lower penalty
originally provided for which is otherwise within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the City Court of Roxas City.
At the time of the institution of the criminal prosecution on 7 July
1976, the penalty imposable for the offense charged in Criminal Case
No. 7362 had been increased by P.D. No. 818 (effective 22 October
1975) to prision mayor in its medium period.
YOH
Secs. 20 & 32, BP 129 as amended by RA 7691
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the law in
force at the time of the commencement of the criminal action.
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction vested on MTC.
CORA LEGADOS, represented by ROSA LEGADOS, and HON.
JESUS ANGELES, petitioners, vs. HON. DOROTEO DE
GUZMAN, Judge, CFI, Br. II, Zamboanga, VILMOR ICAO,
represented by his mother, SOFIA L. ICAO, respondents.
RE JURISDICTION
The writ of prohibition was, of course, correctly issued by the
respondent Judge, being consistent with the doctrine
obtaining at the time, i.e., that an inferior court had no
jurisdiction over the crime of simple seduction. But, as
already pointed out, the doctrine has since been changed.
Now, the offense is explicitly declared by law to be within the
exclusive original jurisdiction, no longer of Courts of First
Instance (since abolished and replaced by Regional Trial
Courts), but of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
Facts:
The Proviso in Section 32 of BP 1292, effective August 14, 1981
altered and superseded the long standing doctrine which
provides that an inferior court had no jurisdiction over the
crime of simple seduction although the penalty imposed is
arresto mayor because conviction thereof carried with it the
liability imposed by Article 345 of the Revised Penal Code to
acknowledge and give support to the offspring.
2 Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts 1 "(e)xclusive original jurisdiction over all
offenses punishable with imprisonment of not exceeding four years
and two months, or a fine of not more than four thousand pesos, or
o Before the passage of BP 129, an information for simple
seduction was filed with the City Court of Dipolog (MTC)
against Vilmor Icao.
o Accused moved to quash the information on the ground
that the City Court had no jurisdiction to try the offense,
and the fiscal who filed the information had no authority to
do so.
o The Court denied the motion and scheduled the case for
trial on the merits.
o Icao thereupon instituted an action of prohibition with the
CFI of Zamboanga (RTC).
Issue: WON the prohibition was properly issued.
Held: Yes.
Ratio: The writ of prohibition was, of course, correctly issued
by the respondent Judge, being consistent with the doctrine
obtaining at the time, i.e., that an inferior court had no
jurisdiction over the crime of simple seduction. But, as already
pointed out, the doctrine has since been changed. Now, the
offense is explicitly declared by law to be within the exclusive
original jurisdiction, no longer of Courts of First Instance (since
abolished and replaced by Regional Trial Courts), but of
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
both such fine and imprisonment, regardless of other imposable
accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising from
such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature,
value, or amount thereof.
YOH
Secs. 20 & 32, BP 129 as amended by RA 7691
RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over libel cases.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. METROPOLITAN
TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, Branch 32, and ISAH V.
RED, respondents.
RE JURISDICTION
The contention that R.A. No. 7691 divested the Regional Trial
Courts of jurisdiction to try libel cases cannot be sustained.
While libel is punishable by imprisonment of six months and
one day to four years and two months (Art. 360, RPC) which
imposable penalty is lodged within the Municipal Trial
Courts jurisdiction under R.A. No. 7691 (Sec. 32 [2]), said
law, however, excludes therefrom ** cases falling within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts.
Facts:
o An information for libel was filed against Isah V. Red in the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
o Accused filed a motion to quash the information on the
ground that the RTC had no jurisdiction of the offense.
o The judge granted the motion and remanded the case to the
MTC.3
o The private prosecutor filed a motion to remand the case
back to the RTC. He invoked Article 360 of the Revised
Penal Code.4 And argued that laws vesting jurisdiction
exclusively with a particular court (such as the Court of Tax
Appeals) are special in character, and should prevail over
3 (u)nder Section 2 of R.A. No. 7691, which took effect on April 15,
1994, exclusive original jurisdiction over 'all offenses punishable
with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years, irrespective of the
amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable accessory or other
penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offenses or
predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount
thereof' is vested in the Municipal Trial Court.
the Judiciary Act defining the jurisdiction of other courts
(such as the Court of First Instance) which is a general law.
Moreover, a general law cannot repeal or amend by
implication a specific provision or a special law. Otherwise
stated: a subsequent statute, general in character as to its
terms and operation, is not to be construed as repealing a
special or specific enactment, unless the legislative purpose
to do so is manifested. This is so, even if the provisions of
the latter are sufficiently comprehensive to include what
was set forth in the special act.
o Judge denied the motion. It opined that "Rep. Act No. 7691,
which took effect on April 15, 1994, would partake of the
nature of a 'modern' law which impliedly repeals an
'ancient' law (the Revised Penal Code) which is of 1932
vintage, which is inconsistent with the later law **; (and
that) if the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new law,
the new law shall be applied.
Issue: Whether it is the Regional Trial Court, or the
Metropolitan Trial Court or other first level court which has
exclusive original jurisdiction over criminal actions of libel.
Held: RTC.
Ratio: The contention ** that R.A. No. 7691 divested the
Regional Trial Courts of jurisdiction to try libel cases cannot be
sustained. While libel is punishable by imprisonment of six
months and one day to four years and two months (Art. 360
Revised Penal Code) which imposable penalty is lodged within
the Municipal Trial Courts' jurisdiction under R.A. No. 7691
(Sec. 32 [2]), said law, however, excludes therefrom' ** cases
falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional
Trial Courts. Regional Trial Courts have the exclusive
4 The criminal action and civil action for damages in case of written
defamation, as provided for in this chapter, shall be filed
simultaneously or separately with the Court of First Instance of the
province or city where the libelous article is printed and first
published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the
time of the commission of the offense.
YOH

jurisdiction over libel cases, hence, the expanded jurisdiction

conferred by R.A. 7691 to inferior courts cannot be applied to
libel cases.
YOH
RA 8249 (Sandiganbayan)
To determine jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan; Disregard what
mode of creation and disregard also the salary grade.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. THE
HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (Fifth Division) and EFREN L.
ALAS, respondents.
RE JURISDICTION OF SB OVER OFFICERS OF GOCCS
WITH ORIGINAL CHARTER AND GOCCS ORGANIZED
UNDER THE CORPORATION CODE.
Congress, pursuant to its authority vested under the 1987
Constitution, enacted RA 7975[8] maintaining the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over presidents, directors
or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled
corporations without any distinction whatsoever.
(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of
government-owned or controlled corporations, state
universities or educational institutions or foundations.
Facts:
o The Ombudsman filed two separate informations for
violation of AGCPA from alleged anomalous advertising
contracts entered into by Alas, in his capacity as President
and Chief Operating Officer of the Philippine Postal Savings
Bank (PPSB), with Bagong Buhay Publishing Company
which purportedly caused damage and prejudice to the
government, filed with the Sandiganbayan.
5 Section 2(13) of EO 292 6 defines government-owned or controlled
corporations as follows:
Sec. 2. General Terms Defined Unless the specific words of the
text or the context as a whole or a particular statute, shall require a
different meaning:
xxx xxx xxx
(13) government owned or controlled corporations refer to any
agency organized as a stock or non-stock corporation vested with
functions relating to public needs whether governmental or
o Alas filed a motion to quash the informations for lack of
jurisdiction.
o The respondent court ruled that PPSB was a private
corporation and that its officers, particularly herein
respondent Alas, did not fall under Sandiganbayan
jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction only over
public officers unless private persons are charged with
them in the commission of the offenses.
o The records disclosed that while Philippine Postal Savings
Bank is a subsidiary of the Philippine Postal Corporation
which is a government owned corporation, the same is not
created by a special law. It was organized and incorporated
under the Corporation Code for profit. Thus, its officers and
employees are not covered by the GSIS and are under the
SSS law, and actions for reinstatement and backwages are
not within the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission
but by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
o People - argues in further defining the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, RA 8249 did not make a distinction as to
the manner of creation of the government-owned or
controlled corporations for their officers to fall under its
jurisdiction. Hence, being President and Chief Operating
Officer of the PPSB at the time of commission of the crimes
charged, respondent Alas came under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
Issue: Does the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over
presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-
owned or controlled corporations5 organized and incorporated
proprietary in nature, and owned by the government directly or
indirectly or through its instrumentalities either wholly, or where
applicable as in the case of stock corporations to the extent of at
least 51% of its capital stock: provided, that government owned or
controlled corporations may be further categorized by the
department of the budget, the civil service commission and the
commission on audit for the purpose of the exercise and discharge of
their respective powers, functions and responsibilities with respect to
such corporations.
YOH

under the Corporation Code for purposes of the provisions of

RA 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act.
Held: Yes
Ratio: From the foregoing, PPSB fits the bill as a government-
owned or controlled corporation, and organized and
incorporated under the Corporation Code as a subsidiary of the
Philippine Postal Corporation (PHILPOST). More than 99% of
the authorized capital stock of PPSB belongs to the government
while the rest is nominally held by its incorporators who
are/were themselves officers of PHILPOST. The creation of
PPSB was expressly sanctioned by Section 32 of RA 7354,
otherwise known as the Postal Service Act of 1992, for purposes
of, among others, "to encourage and promote the virtue of thrift
and the habit of savings among the general public, especially
the youth and the marginalized sector in the countryside . . ."
and to facilitate postal service by "receiving collections and
making payments, including postal money orders."
Congress, pursuant to its authority vested under the 1987
Constitution, enacted RA 7975[8] maintaining the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan over presidents, directors or trustees, or
managers of government-owned or controlled corporations
without any distinction whatsoever.
The legislature, in mandating the inclusion of "presidents,
directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or
controlled corporations" within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, has consistently refrained from making any
distinction with respect to the manner of their creation.
The deliberate omission, in our view, clearly reveals the
intention of the legislature to include the presidents, directors
or trustees, or managers of both types of corporations within
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan whenever they are
involved in graft and corruption. Had it been otherwise, it could
have simply made the necessary distinction. But it did not.