Buaya v.

RTC Judge Polo and Country

Bankers Insurance Corporation [Jan 26,
1989]
Facts: Solemnidad M. Buaya was an
insurance agent who was authorized to
transact and collect the premiums for CBIC.
Buaya is required to account and remit
premium collections to the principal office of
private respondent located in the City of
Manila.
An audit showed a shortage in the amount of
P358,850.72. She was charged with estafa
before the RTC-Manila.
She filed a motion to dismiss which was
denied by respondent Judge. The subsequent
motion for reconsideration of this order of
denial was also denied.
Buaya:
Manila RTC has no jurisdiction because she is
based in Cebu City and necessarily the funds
she allegedly misappropriated were collected
in Cebu City. Subject matter is purely civil in
nature because the fact that CBIC separately
filed a civil case involving the same alleged
misappropriated amount.
CBIC:
Denial of a motion to dismiss or to quash,
being interlocutory in character, cannot be
questioned by certiorari and it cannot be the
subject of appeal until final judgment or order
rendered (See. 2, Rule 41, Rules of Court).
Procedure to be followed is to enter a Plea, go
to trial and if the decision is adverse, reiterate
the issue on appeal from the final judgment
(Newsweek Inc. v. IAC)
Issue/Held:
1. WON denial of a motion to dismiss or to
quash, being interlocutory in character,
cannot be questioned by certiorari and it
cannot be the subject of appeal until final
judgment or order rendered?

As a general rule, YES, but there are

exceptions because it would be unfair to
require the defendant or accused to undergo
the ordeal of a trial if the court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter or offense
or it is not the court of proper venue.
2. WON the Manila RTC has jurisdiction?
Allegations of complaint as basis
YES. Jurisdiction of court is based on the
COMPLAINT. Averments in the complaint or
information characterize the crime to be
prosecuted and the court before which it must
be tried (Balite v. People).
The jurisdiction of courts in criminal cases is
determined by the allegations of the complaint
or information, and not by the findings the
court may make after the trial (People v.
Mission, 87 Phil. 641).
Essential Elements of a crime
Section 14(a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of
Court:
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.
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. One of the essential
elements of estafa is damage or prejudice to
the offended party. The failure to remit the
insurance premiums she collected allegedly
caused damage and prejudice to private
respondent in Manila.

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 . . . ."

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.

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:
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.