2.

Hermogenes Mariano was the Liaison Officer of Mayor Nolasco authorized to receive
US excess property of USAID/NEC for the use of the municipality. The property received
were electric cables and cable powers worth $717.5 which he is bound to deliver to
Mayor Nolasco but he appropriated for his personal use. He was charged with estafa. He
filed a Motion to Quash the Information claiming that the court has no jurisdiction over
him because the Military Commission took cognizance of the case of malversation
against Mayor Nolasco involving the same subject matter. The CFI Judge granted the
motion saying that since the Military Commission had already taken cognizance of
malversation case involving the same subject matter in the exercise of its concurrent
jurisdiction, the estafa case has already been decided. Issue: WON civil courts and
military courts have concurrent jurisdiction over estafa committed by civilian. Held: They
have no concurrent jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of courts is derived from the constitution and the
statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action. At the time the criminal case
was filed on Dec.18, 1974, the law in force vesting jurisdiction upon CFI is the Judiciary Act of
1948.The question of jurisdiction of CFI is to be resolved based on the Judiciary Act of 1948
which provides that the CFI shall have original jurisdiction in all criminal cases in which the
penalty provided by law is imprisonment for more than six months or fine of more than 200
pesos. Estafa is under the CFI jurisdiction. General Order 49 dated Oct. 4, 1974, which
redefined jurisdiction of military tribunals, military commission, does not include the crime of
estafa under the jurisdiction of military courts or military commission. The Military Commission is
without authority to hear and determine the crime of estafa against Mariano hence there is no
concurrent jurisdiction to apply the rule that whoever takes cognizance first acquires jurisdiction
exclusive of the other. (People v Mariano, 586 SCRA 420)

3. Jueves, et.al were charged before the CFI of Tayabas with brigandage or highway
robbery for having committed the following on different occasions:xxx…In Alabat,
Tayabas Province, killing; in sitio of Capalohan (at that time, a part of Capolongan,
Ambos Camarines), robbing; in barrio of Basiad (within jurisdiction of Capalongan,
Ambos Camarines) kidnapping. When the information was filed, the towns where the acts
complained of were committed has already been transferred to Tayabas Province. The
accused were convicted. The counsel argues that Court OF Tayabas has no jurisdiction
because the territory where the acts complained of were committed belonged to the
Ambos Camarines. Issue: WON CFI of Tayabas has jurisdiction over the crime committed
within the transferred territory prior to the time jurisdiction was conferred. Held:Yes.The
general rule is that jurisdiction of a court is determined by the (1) geographical limits over which
it presides, and (2) the actions it is empowered to hear and decide. A court has inchoate right of
jurisdiction over all crimes committed within its jurisdiction, which is perfected at the time of the
institution of the action. If it loses jurisdiction over an action because its territorial limits are
restricted prior to the institution of the action, it loses this inchoate right to jurisdiction in favor of
the court to which the territory is transferred. The territory where the acts complained of were
committed having been transferred to the Province of Tayabas prior to the institution of this
action, the court of that province had jurisdiction to hear and determine the case. The change of
territory after the crime was committed and before the institution of this action does not touch
the offense within another judicial district, and subjects Jueves, et.al to trial in that district. The
assumption of jurisdiction over crimes committed before jusrisdiction was conferred is not a
violation of the ex post facto clause. (US v Jueves, 23 Phil.200)

7. Five Informations for libel were filed in the RTC of Iloilo City, Branch 26, against Bernie
G. Miaque and three others but were quashed for lack of jurisdiction over the offenses
charged. The Informations failed to allege either that Vicente Aragona (private
complainant) actually held office in Iloilo City at the time of the commission of the
offenses or that the alleged libelous remarks were printed or first published in Iloilo City.
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Jerry Maraon’s signed and filed new Informations in the
RTC of Iloilo City, Br. 33, presided by Judge Virgilio M. Patag, with added allegations: (1)
Aragona, Regional State Prosecutor VI of the Department of Justice, held office at the
Hall of Justice, Iloilo City or (2) the alleged libelous remarks were written, printed and
published in Iloilo City. Miaque filed motions not to issue warrants of arrest and, if
already issued, to recall them and remand the Informations to the Provincial Prosecutors
Office for preliminary investigation. Judge Patag denied the motions on the ground that
Miaque was beyond the courts jurisdiction as he was not under the custody of the court.
Issue: WON Iloilo Provincial Prosecutors Office has authority to file and sign the new
Informations alleged to have been committed in Iloilo City. Held: No authority. PD 1275,
SEC. 9. Offices of Provincial Fiscals and City Fiscals Staffing. -- There shall be in each province
and each subprovince; one provincial fiscal and such number of assistant provincial fiscals as
may hereinafter be provided for. There shall be in each city one city fiscals and such number of
assistant city fiscals as may hereinafter be provided. SEC. 11. Provincial Fiscals and City
Fiscals; Duties and Functions. The provincial fiscal or the city fiscal shall:xxx b) Investigate
and/or cause to be investigated all charges of crimes, misdemeanors and violations of all penal
laws and ordinances within their respective jurisdictions and have the necessary
information or complaint prepared or made against the persons accused. xxx The Iloilo
Provincial Prosecutors Office was clearly bereft of authority to file the new Informations against
petitioner. An Information, when required by law to be filed by a public prosecuting officer,
cannot be filed by another.The court does not acquire jurisdiction over the case because there
is a defect in the Information. We held in People v. Hon. Garfin:It is a valid information signed by
a competent officer which, among other requisites, confers jurisdiction on the court over the
person of the accused and the subject matter thereof. Questions relating to lack of jurisdiction
may be raised at any stage of the proceeding. An infirmity in the information, such as lack of
authority of the officer signing it, cannot be cured by silence, acquiescence, or even by express
consent. (BERNIE G. MIAQUE vs. HON. VIRGILIO M. PATAG,in his capacity as Presiding
Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 33, VICENTE C. ARAGONA, and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. Nos. 170609-13)

8. Jose Dadis charged Rafael, Ariston, and Jose Anadilla with Attempted Homicide. RTC
issued a warrant of arrest against Rafael and set a new date of trial. Four months after
date of trial, CFI Judge Delfin Sunga dismissed the case and lifted the warrant of arrest
against Rafael. This is in view of the Affidavit of Desistance that Dadis executed where he
stated that he was no longer interested to prosecute the case’ he had forgiven the
accused and his material witnesses could not be located, and that without their
testimonies, the guilt of the accused could no be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Provincial fiscal filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the dismissal but it was denied.
Issue: WON the court a quo may dismiss a criminal case based on an affidavit of
desitance executed by the offended party even without a motion to dismiss filed by the
fiscal. Held: Yes. The preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal for the purpose of
determining whether a prima facie case exists warranting the prosecution of the accused is
terminated upon the filing of the information in the proper court. The filing of the complaint or
information in Court inititates a criminal action. The Court acquires jurisdiction over the case.
Once a complaint is filed, the disposition of the case rests in the sound discretion of the court.
The fiscal cannot impose his opinion on the court when the case has been submitted to the
court as his jurisdiction ends in the direction and control of the prosecution of the case. The
Court has taken note that before the case was set for trial, almost ten 10 years had elapsed
from the date of filing of the information. Almost 10yrs have elapsed since the date of the filing
of the information against. It was not unusual that the victim could not find his witnesses, the
testimonies of whom needed to convict the accused.(Republic v Sunga G.R. No. L-38634. June
20, 1988)