Case Digest (G.R. No. L-26563)
Facts:
The case of Rodolfo Andico vs. Judge Amado G. Roan, et al. (G.R. No. L-26563) was decided on April 16, 1968. The petitioner, Rodolfo Andico, filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus against the respondents, which included Judge Amado G. Roan of the Municipal Court of Manila and respondent Fidelino. The case arose from a criminal proceeding where Fidelino was charged with serious physical injuries, an offense punishable by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period. The information against Fidelino was filed on July 30, 1964, and the case was tried by Judge Roan, who found Fidelino guilty and sentenced him to six months of arresto mayor on March 16, 1966.
Fidelino appealed the decision to the Court of First Instance of Manila, which Andico contended was incorrect. He argued that the appeal should have been directed to the Court of Appeals instead, as per Section 37 of the Judiciary Act, which states that the Municipal Court of Man...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-26563)
Facts:
- Case Background: The petitioner, Rodolfo Andico, filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus on September 14, 1966, challenging the failure to properly appeal a criminal case to the correct judicial tribunal.
- Criminal Case Details: Respondent Fidelino was charged with serious physical injuries in the Municipal Court of Manila on July 30, 1964. The offense was punishable by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period.
- Trial and Conviction: The case was tried and decided by respondent Judge Amado G. Roan, with the proceedings recorded and stenographic notes taken. Fidelino was found guilty and sentenced to six months of arresto mayor on March 16, 1966.
- Appeal to the Wrong Court: Fidelino appealed the decision to the Court of First Instance of Manila instead of the Court of Appeals, as required by law.
- Petitioner’s Motion for Execution: On July 30, 1966, petitioner filed a motion for execution of the judgment, arguing that the decision was directly appealable to the Court of Appeals and had become final due to the improper appeal. The motion was denied by Judge Roan.
- Jurisdictional Argument: Petitioner contended that under Section 37 of the Judiciary Act, as amended, the Municipal Court of Manila and the Court of First Instance had concurrent jurisdiction over the offense, making the decision directly appealable to the Court of Appeals. This argument was overruled by Judge Placido Ramos and affirmed by Judge Conrado Vasquez.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
- Jurisdiction of Municipal Courts and Courts of First Instance: Under the Judiciary Act, as amended, municipal courts and Courts of First Instance have concurrent jurisdiction over criminal offenses where the penalty is imprisonment for more than six months but not exceeding six years or a fine of more than P200 but not exceeding P6,000.
- Direct Appeal to the Court of Appeals: In cases where municipal courts and Courts of First Instance have concurrent jurisdiction, and the proceedings are recorded, the decision is directly appealable to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.
- Application of Esperat v. Avila: The Supreme Court relied on the precedent set in Esperat v. Avila, which clarified that the exclusive original jurisdiction of municipal courts is limited to cases with penalties of six months or less or fines of P200 or less. For penalties exceeding these limits but not exceeding three years (or six years for city courts), jurisdiction is concurrent with the Court of First Instance, and appeals must be made directly to the Court of Appeals.
- Finality of Judgment: Since the appeal was improperly made to the Court of First Instance, the judgment had not become final, and mandamus could not be issued to compel execution.