Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2860)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Francisco Palmon, G.R. No. L-2860. May 11, 1950, the Supreme Court, Ozaeta, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner The People of the Philippines charged respondent Francisco Palmon in the Court of First Instance of Capiz with serious physical injuries committed on November 19, 1948, in Batan, Capiz, by firing a carbine at Pedro Cipriano and instead hitting and wounding Eliseo Flogio on the left thigh, an injury that required amputation to save his life.
Before arraignment, the trial judge, His Honor Judge Hipolito Alo, motu proprio dismissed the information on the ground that under section 87 of Republic Act No. 296 (the Judiciary Act of 1948) the offense fell within the original jurisdiction of the justice of the peace. The provincial fiscal appealed that dismissal to the Supreme Court.
The information charged an offense defined in Article 263, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code (serious physical injuries), punishable by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods (2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 6 years). The jurisdictional provisions in dispute were section 44(f) (original jurisdiction of the Courts of First Instance over criminal cases with imprisonment for more than six months or fines over two hundred pesos) and section 87 (original jurisdiction of justices of the peace and municipal judges over enumerated offenses, including "assaults where the intent to kill is not charged or evident upon the trial") of Republic Act No. 296.
The trial court treated the section 87 grant as exclusive and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Solicitor General (on appeal) contended instead that section 87(c) and section 44(f) should be read ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in dismissing the information for lack of jurisdiction?
- Does section 87(c) of Republic Act No. 296 confer exclusive original jurisdiction on justices of the peace (and judges of municipal courts) over "assaults where the intent to kill is not charged or evident upon the trial," or is that jurisdiction concurrent with the Courts of First Instance when the offense carries a penalty beyond the limit...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)