G.R. No. 191759 - People vs. Moreno y Tazon

The accused, Marita Ocampo y Pure, was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with attempted theft, with the aggravating circumstance of recidivism.
During the trial, she waived her right to present evidence, and was consequently convicted.
She was sentenced to six months and one day of destierro, accompanied by accessory penalties provided by law, and was ordered to pay the costs.

The information stated that the accused “did then and there open the bag” of the offended party which contained P202.00 in cash of different denominations.
The act was alleged to be committed with the evident intent to take, steal, and carry away the cash money.
However, due to causes independent of her own voluntary desistance, she did not perform all the acts necessary for the consummation of the theft.

Under Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code, an attempted offense is punishable by a penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed for the consummated felony.
Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code provides that if the value of the property stolen is more than P200 but does not exceed P2,000, the applicable penalty for theft in its consummated form is imprisonment in its minimum and medium periods.
With the reduction for an attempted offense, the expected penalty would be adjusted to destierro in its maximum period to arresto mayor in its minimum period, not exceeding two months of imprisonment.

The offense charged falls within the ambit of Republic Act No. 296.
Section 87(b) of RA 296 indicates that offenses carrying a penalty of imprisonment for not more than six months or a fine of not more than two hundred pesos, or both, are under the original jurisdiction of the municipal (chartered city) court.
Section 87(c) of RA 296, however, specifically covers consummated acts of larceny, embezzlement, and estafa when the value does not exceed P200. In this case, the property involved slightly exceeds P200.
Importantly, Section 87(c) applies to consummated acts, while the case in question involves an attempted (unconsummated) offense.
The trial court’s jurisdiction is questioned because the intended penalty for the attempted offense, even after reduction, exceeds the limits prescribed for the municipal court under the pertinent provisions.

The accused appealed her conviction to the Court of Appeals.
One of the primary issues raised involved the jurisdiction of the trial court.
The Court of Appeals, considering the jurisdictional assignment error, certified the case to the Supreme Court under Section 17(3) of RA 296, as amended.

Whether the trial (municipal) court had the proper jurisdiction to try an offense of attempted theft based on the applicable penalty range.
If the offense, being attempted and subject to a penalty reduction, still falls within the jurisdictional limits of the municipal court or falls instead under the court of first instance.

How to harmonize the provisions of Section 87(b) and Section 87(c) of Republic Act No. 296 in cases where the amount involved is slightly above P200.
Whether the jurisdictional threshold for consummated theft should be equally applied to attempted theft, considering the penalty reduction dictated by Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code.