Title
Arcaya vs. Teleron
Case
G.R. No. L-37446
Decision Date
May 31, 1974
A 1971 collision involving a PNB jeep and a private vehicle led to criminal charges for reckless imprudence. Defendants contested jurisdiction and prescription, but the Supreme Court upheld the municipal court's authority, ruled the crime had not prescribed, and dismissed the petition, emphasizing jurisdictional limits and procedural remedies.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-37446)

Summary of Proceedings

Following the collision, a criminal charge was filed on April 27, 1971, against Arcaya and Ceballos for "double less serious physical injuries, slight physical injuries and damage to property thru reckless imprudence" in Criminal Case No. 1397. The offenses involved injuries to various parties, including passengers of Dr. Nazareno’s Combi. The initial complaint faced a motion to quash from the defendants, asserting the improper joinder of offenses. Consequently, the Chief of Police amended the complaints on July 9, 1971, to separate the less serious injuries from the slight injuries, reorganizing the cases accordingly.

Jurisdictional Issues

Arcaya and Ceballos continued to contest the municipal court's jurisdiction, arguing that the offenses could not be joined in one indictment and that the slight physical injury charge had already prescribed. The municipal court denied their motion to quash, leading the petitioners to escalate the matter to the Court of First Instance of Bohol through a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, which was dismissed on April 12, 1973. Subsequently, the petitioners sought further review of this dismissal by filing for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus in a higher court.

Misapprehension of Jurisdiction

The court highlighted that the assertion that the complaint "conferred jurisdiction" is a fundamental misunderstanding. Jurisdiction derives from law, not from the complaint itself. It was noted that the municipal court of Tubigon possessed the requisite authority to handle the offenses charged under the pertinent provisions of the Judiciary Law. Furthermore, the prescription issue, deemed a non-jurisdictional matter, had been properly characterized, as the clock on prescription is interrupted by the filing of the original complaint.

Denial of Certiorari

It was determined that the lower courts did not act in excess of their jurisdiction nor did they grossly abuse their discretion, validating their denial of the motion to quash. Certiorari is intended to address grave abuses of discretion or jurisdictional errors—not errors in judgment, which are correctable through appeal. This aligns with established legal principles, wherein issues arising from procedural errors or erroneous findings do not war

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.