G.R. No. 154557 - People vs. Court of Appeals

On February 24, 1992, respondents Rico Lipao and Rickson Lipao were indicted for violating Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705 (Revised Forestry Code), as amended by Executive Order No. 277.
The charge involved possessing eight pieces of round timber and 160 bundles of firewood without legal documents and loading these forest products onto a pumpboat without the required license from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
The forest products involved were valued at P3,100.00.
The offense was punishable under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code (theft and qualified theft).

Article 309 provides penalties for theft, with prision correccional in medium and maximum periods for property valued over P6,000 up to P12,000, involving imprisonment from 2 years 4 months 1 day to 6 years.
Republic Act No. 7691, which took effect on April 15, 1994 (after the filing but before the trial court's judgment), expanded jurisdiction of Metropolitan, Municipal, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MeTCs, MTCs, MCTCs) to cover all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six years, irrespective of the amount involved.
Prior to RA 7691, jurisdiction of these lower courts was limited to offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding 4 years 2 months.

On July 25, 1994, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 32, Surigao City, found respondents guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 68 of PD 705, as amended.
Sentences imposed were indeterminate penalties ranging from prision correccional minimum to prision mayor maximum periods, with forfeiture of the forest products.

Respondents appealed to the CA asserting illegal search and seizure (lack of search warrant), failure to prove lack of a license, and absence of personal possession by Rico Lipao.
The CA did not address these issues on the merits but ruled, on June 13, 2002, that the RTC lacked jurisdiction due to RA 7691 granting exclusive jurisdiction over the offense to the MeTC, MTC, and MCTC.
The CA set aside the RTC judgment and dismissed the criminal case for lack of jurisdiction.

The People of the Philippines filed a petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking to nullify the CA decision dismissing the case based on lack of jurisdiction.
The main contention was that RA 7691, passed after the institution of the criminal case, did not take away the RTC’s jurisdiction because the rule is that jurisdiction attaches at the time of filing and continues until final resolution.
Respondents contended that the petition should be dismissed for procedural reasons, including the absence of a motion for reconsideration and issues with verification and certificate of non-forum shopping signatures.

Whether the CA gravely erred in dismissing the criminal case for lack of jurisdiction of the RTC due to enactment of RA 7691.
Whether RA 7691 operates retroactively to divest the RTC of jurisdiction over a pending criminal case involving an offense punishable by imprisonment exceeding six years or with penalties within RA 7691’s expanded jurisdiction.
Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail the CA dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction despite the petitioner's failure to file a motion for reconsideration.
Whether the signature of the Solicitor General on the verification and certification of non-forum shopping complies with the Rules of Court when filed on behalf of government agencies.