G.R. No. L-32737 - Concon vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioner Gregorio A. Concon was convicted by the City Court of Cebu (now the Municipal Trial Court of Cebu) for the offense of grave threats, specifically for allegedly threatening to kill one Cecilio Abella with a shotgun.
The conviction resulted in a sentence of one month and one day of arresto mayor imprisonment and a fine of P200.00.

Immediately after the promulgation of the sentence on July 2, 1968, petitioner filed a notice of appeal, indicating that the appeal was to be submitted to the Court of First Instance of Cebu.
Instead of transmitting the records to the Court of First Instance, the City Court forwarded them to the Court of Appeals, where the case was docketed as CA-G.R. No. 09188.

On November 2, 1970, two years after the perfection of the appeal, petitioner filed a motion requesting that the records be remanded to the Court of First Instance on the ground that it was the proper appellate forum.
The Court of Appeals denied the motion and required petitioner to file his brief; a subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied.

Petitioner relied on Section 42 of the Revised Charter of Cebu City, asserting that appeals in cases where a fine or imprisonment is imposed by the City Court should lie to the Court of First Instance.
The contention was that this provision should govern the proper appellate jurisdiction over his case, implying that the records should have been sent to the Court of First Instance rather than the Court of Appeals.

The offense of grave threats, punishable under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code, fell under the concurrent jurisdiction of the City Court and the Court of First Instance as provided by the amended Judiciary Act of 1948.
Relevant provisions cited include Section 44(f) and specific paragraphs of Section 84 which outline the concurrent, original jurisdiction of the involved courts, and the last paragraph of Section 87(c) which clarifies the direct appeal process from municipal and city courts to the Court of Appeals.
It was also noted that the ruling applied solely to cases perfected before the implementation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (the Judiciary Reorganization Act), which redefined the jurisdictional structure among the lower courts.

The appellate court’s decision to deny the motion for remand affirmed that, under the law in force at the time of the appeal, the proper appellate forum was indeed the Court of Appeals.
Consequently, the petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition was brought before the Supreme Court seeking to challenge the appellate court's jurisdictional determination.

Whether the appeal interposed by petitioner should have been determined by the Court of First Instance of Cebu as petitioned, based on the provisions of Section 42 of the Revised Charter of Cebu City, or by the Court of Appeals as had transpired.

The issue of whether the local charter’s provision on appellate jurisdiction applies to cases tried under the concurrent jurisdiction of the City Court and the Court of First Instance as provided by the Judiciary Act of 1948.
Whether the concurrent jurisdiction regime under the earlier Judiciary Act overrides the specific local statutory scheme indicated by Section 42 of the Revised Charter of Cebu City.

The related question of how the implementation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, which restructured the jurisdictional boundaries of lower courts, impacts the proper appellate forum for cases perfected before its enactment.