People v. Lagon [May 18, 1990]

Nature: Petition for Review filed by the People as represented by the Fiscal arguing that the City Court of Roxas City had jurisdiction and that it had erred in issuing its Order dismissing the case.

Facts:

·         Libertad Lagon was charged with estafa under par2(d) RPC 315 in the amount of P4,232.80 as payment for goods or merchandise.

·         April 1975 - alleged commission of the crime [arresto mayor max to PC min] 

·         Oct 22 1975 – PD 818 was enacted increasing the penalty to PM med

·         July 1976 –criminal information filed at City Court

·         Dec 1976 - City Court dismissed the information because the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged was beyond the court's authority to impose.

·         City Court: at the time of the institution of the action

·         OSG: agreed with the City Court

Issues/Ruling:

1. WON the City Court has jurisdiction. Whether the court jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at a) the time of the institution of the action or at b) the time of the commission of the crime?

·         Court jurisdiction is determined by the law at the time of the institution of the action. Therefore, the City Court has no jurisdiction over the case. Petition for review dismissed.

·         Section 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948: jurisdiction of municipal and city courts... offense… in which the penalty… does not exceed prision correccional or imprisonment for not more than six (6) years or fine not exceeding P6,000.00 or both . . . ."

2. Would application of the doctrine not result in also applying PD 818, in disregard of the rule against retroactivity of penal laws?

·         RPC 22 permits penal laws to have retroactive effect only "insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, . . . "

·         Subject-matter jurisdiction is determined by the authority of the court to impose the penalty imposable under the applicable statute given the allegations of a criminal information.

·         In People v.Purisima and People v. Buissan:

o    . . . The issue here is one of jurisdiction, of a court's legal competence to try a case ab origine. In criminal prosecutions, it is settled that the jurisdiction of the court is not determined by what may be meted out to the offender after trial, or even by the result of the evidence that would be presented at the trial, but by the extent of the penalty which the law imposes for the misdemeanor, crime or violation charged in the complaint…”. 

·         Should the information be refiled in the RTC, that court may only impose the penalty provided in the law at the time of the commission of the crime.