Case Digest (G.R. No. 126623)
Facts:
Ernesto Morales y Dela Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126623, December 12, 1997, the Supreme Court En Banc, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.The petitioner, Ernesto Morales y Dela Cruz, was charged by information filed on March 13, 1996 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasay City (Criminal Case No. 96-8443, Branch 116), with violating Section 15 in relation to Section 20 of R.A. No. 6425 (the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended by R.A. No. 7659, for allegedly selling 0.4587 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The petitioner pleaded not guilty and filed a Motion to Dismiss (April 30, 1996) arguing lack of RTC jurisdiction because, under Section 20 as construed in People v. Simon, the imposable penalty would not exceed prision correccional (six years) and, under R.A. No. 7691, such offenses fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Metropolitan/Municipal Trial Courts.
On May 9, 1996 the RTC (presided by Hon. Alfredo J. Gustilo) denied the motion, invoking Section 39 of R.A. No. 6425 as preserving concurrent original jurisdiction in the Courts of First Instance (now RTCs) over all drug offenses. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and he filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 40670). The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), in its Comment, agreed that the RTC lacked jurisdiction on the merits but argued that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Rule 65 petition because jurisdictional questions involving inferior courts were exclusively reviewable by the Supreme Court.
On August 8, 1996 the Court of Appeals dismissed the Rule 65 petition for lack of jurisdiction, citing Section 5(2)(c), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution and Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. After denial of reconsideration (September 13, 1996), the petitioner brought the present petition...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals has original jurisdiction to entertain a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 challenging the jurisdiction of an RTC judge to try an alleged violation of R.A. No. 6425.
- Whether the RTC has jurisdiction to try the alleged violation of Section 15 in relation to Section 20 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended, involving 0.4587 grams ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)