G.R. No. 126623 - Morales y Dela Cruz vs. Court of Appeals

Ernesto Morales y De la Cruz, petitioner, was charged with violating Section 15 in relation to Section 20 of R.A. No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by R.A. No. 7659).
The information charged that on 11 March 1996 in Pasay, Metro Manila, the petitioner allegedly sold and delivered 0.4587 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
The case was initially docketed as Criminal Case No. 96-8443 and raffled to Branch 116 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City.
Upon arraignment, the petitioner pleaded not guilty.

On 30 April 1996, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the RTC was without jurisdiction because:

Under Section 20 of R.A. No. 7659 (interpreted in People v. Simon) the imposable penalty should not exceed prision correccional (maximum six years).
R.A. No. 7691 vested exclusive original jurisdiction in Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts for cases with penalties not exceeding six years.

The RTC, in its 9 May 1996 Order, denied the motion by holding that an exception existed whereby cases falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction provided in Section 39 of R.A. No. 6425 remained within the RTC’s competence.
After a subsequent denial of his motion for reconsideration, the petitioner elevated the issue by filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) supported the petitioner’s contention that the RTC lacked jurisdiction but argued that the Court of Appeals itself lacked jurisdiction over a special civil action for certiorari regarding questions of jurisdiction.

In its Resolution of 8 August 1996, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari for lack of jurisdiction, relying on constitutional and statutory provisions (Section 5(2)(c) of Article VIII of the Constitution and Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended by R.A. No. 5440).
The petitioner then raised two primary issues on his petition for review under Rule 45 in the Supreme Court:

Whether the Court of Appeals had concurrent original jurisdiction in a Rule 65 special civil action for certiorari concerning the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Whether the RTC had jurisdiction to try a drug case involving 0.4587 grams of shabu where the penalty imposed by law would not exceed prision correccional.

Whether the Court of Appeals has concurrent original jurisdiction with the Supreme Court over petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 when the issue is the jurisdiction of an inferior court, particularly in view of Section 9(1) of B.P. Blg. 129 and Section 5(1) of Article VIII of the Constitution.
Whether the contention based on Sections 5(2)(c) of Article VIII and Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, which apparently reserve appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in cases involving questions on the jurisdiction of lower courts, is applicable to an original special civil action for certiorari.

Whether the RTC properly exercised jurisdiction over the petitioner’s case given that the offense charged, involving only 0.4587 grams of shabu, imposes a penalty of prision correccional (imprisonment not exceeding six years).
Whether the amendments brought by R.A. No. 7659 and the provisions of R.A. No. 7691, which generally vest exclusive original jurisdiction in the Metropolitan, Municipal, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts for offenses with penalties not exceeding six years, preclude the RTC from trying the case, or whether certain statutory exceptions (e.g., those provided in Section 39 of R.A. No. 6425) allow the RTC to retain jurisdiction.