People vs Mariano Mariano, then liason officer acting in behalf of the municipality of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan,

, was authorized to receive from USAID/NEC electric cable and cable power valued at P4,797.35. Despite repeated demands, he knowingly and wilfully with grave abuse of confidence misappropriated and converted to his own personal use the said items. He was charged with estafa. Mariano filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the offense he was being charged with. Mariano claimed that the items in question were the same items used in the case of Mayor Nolasco decided by the military tribunal for which he was found guilty of. CFI of Bulacan has lost jurisdiction over the case against him. Issue: W/N CFI of Bulacan has jurisdiction of the case yes Ratio: the conferment of jurisdiction upon courts or judicial tribunals is derived exclusively from the constitution and statutes of the forum. According to the Judiciary Act of 1948, the offense of estafa Mariano is charged with exceeds 6 months imprisonment, falling under the original jurisdiction of the courts of first instance. That the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action General Order 49 redefined the jurisdiction of military tribunals ocer certain offenses; in other words, it is not vested with the jurisdiction over the crime of estafa.

Testimonies from Gracian Laiman, Doroteo Maraver, Angelo Lunasco, and Juan Talento were used to positively identify those accused. The guilt of all appellants has been established beyond any question of a doubt. Counsel insists, at first, that the court of Tayabas had no jurisdiction to try the case for the reason that the territory where the acts complained were committed belonged to the province of Ambos Camarines at the time of the commission of said acts, although it has since been transferred to the province of Tayabas. Issue: Does a court have jurisdiction of crimes committed in a particular locality prior to the time such locality was included within the jurisdiction of such court yes Ratio: a court has inchoate right of jurisdiction over all crimes committed within the jurisdiction which is perfected on the institution of the action. If, however, it loses jurisdiction over a particular action because its territorial limits are restricted prior to the institution of the action, it loses this inchoate right to jurisdiction in favour of the court to which the territory is transferred. The territory where the acts complained in the case were committed having been transferred to the Province of Tayabas prior to the institution of this action, the court of that province had jurisdiction to hear and determine the case. The change of the territory after the crime was committed and before the institution of this action does not touch the offense nor change the punishment, it only includes the place of the commission of the offense within another judicial district.

US vs Jueves Appellants, 7 in number, wre being charged with brigandage for acts done prior to the filing of information (refer to originals). Reyes vs Diaz

(No real facts are given in this case. Stated only is the issue of W/N there is sufficient evidence to show protestant has filed his CoC, and W/N the trial court has authority to pass on validity of the ballots adjudicated). Article 8 sec. 2 of the constitution confers upon the SC jurisdiction over all cases in which the jurisdiction of any trial court is in issue. Jurisdiction over the subject-matter is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong and is conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the court and defines its powers. The question therefore, of W/N a court has jurisdiction over the subjectmatter, calls for interpretation and application of the law of jurisdiction which distributes the judicial power among the different courts of the Philippines. In the instance case, there is no such question of jurisdiction as above described. Both parties agree that if the due filing of the protestants certificate of candidacy is proven, the trial court has jurisdiction. If not proven, then case is dismissed. Jurisdiction over the issue, unlike jurisdiction over the subjectmatter, may be conferred by consent either express or implied of the parties. Although an issue is not duly pleaded it may validly be tried and decided if no timely objection is made thereto by the parties. This cannot be done when jurisdiction over subjectmatter is involved. W/N the court has jurisdiction over a specific issue is a question that requires nothing except an examination of the pleadings, and this function is without such importance as to call for the intervention of this court.

Velunta vs Chief

Petitioner is a regular member of the Integrated National Police of Tacloban City with rank of Patrolman. While directing traffic, petitioner tried to apprehend tricycle driver Romeo Lozano. An altercation arose between them which resulted in the shooting and death of Lozano. (Lozano was shot in his left cheek). Mrs. Lozano filed an administrative complaint against petitioner with NAPOLCOM, finding the petitioner guilty of grave misconduct dismissing him from service, later on mitigated to less grave misconduct sentencing him to 6 months suspension with no pay. A complaint for homicide is also filed against petitioner. Pursuant to PD 1850 the case was referred to the military authorities. Petitioner challenges the assumption of jurisdiction by the General Court Martial, contending that this is the result of EO 1040, removing police officers from the supervision and control of the Chief of the Philippine Constabulary. Issue: Whether or not military courts have jurisdiction yes Ratio: jurisdiction is the power with which courts are vested for administering justice, that is, for hearing and deciding cases. In this case, it is specifically stated under EO 1012 that it is only operational supervision and direction over units of the Integrated National Police force that was transferred. The distinction between operational supervision and direction and jurisdiction of a court martial to try cases is easily discernible. One refers to how the police will perform their functions and who shall direct such performance while the other refers to tribunals vested with power to try criminal cases against them. The aforecited provision does not repeal in express terms PD 1850. When the case was filed in 1982, the general court martial

had jurisdiction. Since jurisdiction had properly been exercised from the start, it remains with the military court martial unless a law expressly divests it of that jurisdiction. It is an established rule that jurisdiction once acquired remains until validly transferred by the proper authority according to law. Uy vs Sandiganbayan Petitioner was deputy comptroller officer of the Phil. Navy. He was designated by his captain. To act on the latters behalf during his absence on matters relating to the activities of the Fiscal Control Branch. This includes authority to sign disbursement vouchers relative to the procurement of equipment needed by the Navy. 6 informations of estafa through falsification of official documents and 1 violation of RA 3019 were filed with the Sandiganbayan against petitioner and nineteen others. Reinvestigation reduced number to 5 accused including petitioner. Petitioner filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the offense charged of the person accused. Motion was denied. Issue: W/N Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the subject criminal cases of the person of the petitioner no Ratio: the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action. PD 1606 creating the Sandiganbayan, provides the prevailing scope of the Sandiganbayans jurisdiction. Petitioner does not fall within the rankrequirement stated in PD 1606. Exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper tribunals. Consequently, it is the regional trial court that has jurisdiction.

Subido vs Sandiganbayan Subido, then Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) and accused Rene Parina, being then a BID special agent, while in performance of their functions, issued a warrant of arrest against James Maksimuk in implementation of a BID decision for the formers deportation, with the decision not yet final and executory. Petitioners filed a motion to quash, contending that the effectivity of RA 7975 amending PD 1606, the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over both the offense charged and the persons of the accused; that RA 7975 should be given prospective application and at the time the case was filed, petitioner Subido was already a private person, and Parina did not hold position corresponding to Salary Grade 27. Issue: W/N Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction yes Ratio: RA 7975 took effect 1 year, 10 months, 21 days after the alleged commission of the crime charged. The provisions of PD 1606 are then the applicable provisions. The reckoning point is the time of the commission of the crime, hence, their positions during that time are taken in to consideration. It does not matter that Subido was already a private individual, Parina as coconspirator, is also principal to the complaint.

Cuyco vs Sandiganbayan Petitioner was indicted for having violated section 3(a) of RA 3019. Petitioner filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion to quash the information for lack of jurisdiction, contending that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the cases under RA 7975. Motion was denied.

Petitioner contends that at the time of the commission of the offense, he was occupying the position of Director II, salary grade 26, hence, the jurisdiction over the cases falls with the RTC Issue: W/N at the time of the filing of the informations the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the cases against petitioner no Ratio: The Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over violations of RA 3019 unless committed by public officials and employees occupying positions with salary grade 27 or higher. The Sandiganbayan incurred in serious error of jurisdiction, and acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction

Besides, the crime of estafa is a continuing or transitory offense which may be prosecuted at the place where any of the essential elements of the crime took place. Damage to the offended party is an essential element of estafa, failure to remit caused private respondent damage in Manila.

Republic vs Sunga an information for attempted homicide was filed against private respondents Rafael, Ariston, and Jose Anadilla. Hearing was set on March 11-12 1974, but the hearing on March 11 was postponed in view of the absence of one of the accused, Rafael Anadilla. Hearing was re-scheduled to July 29-30 1974. On March 20, the offended party executed an affidavit of desistance stating that he was no longer interested in pursuing the case, the court ordered the case to be dismissed. Issue: W/N the court can dismiss a criminal case on the basis of an affidavit of desistance executed by the offended party but without a motion to dismiss filed by the prosecting fiscal yes Ratio: The rule therefore in therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in this Court any disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or the acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the courtThe determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. * to avoid similar the court takes the view that any move on the part of the complainant to dismiss the criminal case, even if without objection from the accused, should first be referred to the prosecuting fiscal for his own view on the matter (the fiscal in his motion for recon. believed he could still prosecute the case). Almost 10 years had elapsed from the date of filing of

Buaya vs Polo Petitioner was an insurance agent of respondent, who was authorized to collect corresponding premiums on his behalf. Petitioner is required to make a periodic report and accounting of her transactions, and remit premium collections to the principal office in Manila. An audit was conducted which showed petitioners account with a shortage of P358,850.72. She was charged with estafa, her motion to dismiss was denied by respondent judge. Petitioner contends that RTC of Manila has no jurisdiction because she is based in Cebu and necessarily the funds she allegedly misappropriated were collected in Cebu City. Issue: W/N the RTC of Manila has jurisdiction to try the case yes Ratio: the Revised Rules of Court provides in all criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province wherein the offense was committed or any of the essential elements thereof took place.

information. It was not unusual that the complainant could no longer be contacted. US vs De la Santa Defendant allegedly seduced Teofila Sevilla under promise of marriage, at which time she was less than 21 years of age. The complaint was not filed until Feb. 1906, when she was more than 24 though less than 25 years of age. The complaint was submitted by Esteban Sevilla, at whose instance these proceedings were had alleging he is the father of the victim. We think that since the complaint was note filed until after the offended party had attained her majority, criminal proceedings based on the alleged seduction could only be instituted and maintained at her instance, and she, and she alone, could file a complaint which would give the trial court jurisdiction over the offenses charged. Issue: W/N jurisdiction has been acquired over the person of the accused no Ratio: under the provisions or article 448 of the Penal Code, jurisdiction over the crime of seduction is expressly denied the trial court unless such jurisdiction be conferred by one of certain persons specified in the law; in this case, as we have seen, the offended person herself. Jurisdiction over the subject-matter in a judicial proceeding is conferred by the soverign authority which organizes the court; it is given only by law and in the manner prescribed by law and an objection based on the lack of such jurisdiction in a criminal case cannot be waived by the parties.

The complaint charges the defendant with the crime of estafa and falsification. It is alleged that he, while an employee of the Manila-Dagupan Railway, issued a ticket to a passenger who was going from Manila to Caloocan, and who continued his trip to Malolos; that the difference in the fare amounted to 1 peso and 22 cents. The complaint does not precisely place where the falsification was committed, nor where the appropriation of the money occurred. It appears from the testimony of the accused that he rendered an account to the station master in Tarlac, of the money in question. In addition, the record discloses an itemized account of the collections made by him on the trip in question. Jurisdiction to try the offense charged is vested in the court of Tarlac, not only because it was within territory of that court that the appropriation constituting the crime estafa charged was committed, but also within the same territory the accused made use of the document alleged to be false. *the CFI of Manila took cognizance of the case.

People vs Regalario City of Lucena, Philippines Accused is charged with murder for the death of one Menardo Garcia (take note of conspiracy and how it was depicted in the case; cause of death was established to be shock due to massive internal haemorrhage due to stab wound at the left back penetrating his lung and heart). Appellants contend that the lower court erred in rejecting the notice of appeal filed by the accused on the ground that it was filed beyond the reglementary period. Appellants claim that the

US vs Reyes

computation of the period of fifteen days wherein to file the notice of appeal should be counted from Feb. 23, 1991 and not from the date of decision from said case (appeal must be taken 15 days from promulgation or notice) Issue: W/N appellants contention is correct no The records of this case show that the conviction was promulgated on Jan. 17, 1991. When appellants filed their notice of appeal on March 4, 1991, ten days had elapsed since the receipt of the notice of the order denying their motion for recon. Period for filing of appeal is interrupted from the time a motion for reconsideration or new trial is filed and starts to run again from receipt of notice denying said motion. In the case, fourteen days had already elapsed before the filing of appellants motion for reconsideration hence they had only one day from Feb. 22, 1991 to file a notice of appeal. The trial court was correct in rejecting notice of appeal since it was filed beyond the reglementary period.