Scribd
Upload
244 views1 page

People vs. Mariano, 71 SCRA 604: Months, or A Fine of More Than Two Hundred

The Supreme Court ruled that civil courts, not military commissions, have sole and exclusive jurisdiction over the offense of estafa where the goods stolen are valued at not more than 6,000 pesos. The respondent, Hermogenes Mariano, was accused of estafa involving goods worth P4,797.35. As the penalty for estafa exceeds six months imprisonment, it falls under the original jurisdiction of civil courts. While a military commission convicted the mayor of malversation involving the same goods, estafa and malversation are separate offenses. Therefore, the civil court retains jurisdiction over the estafa case against Mariano.

Uploaded by

Russell
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
244 views1 page

People vs. Mariano, 71 SCRA 604: Months, or A Fine of More Than Two Hundred

The Supreme Court ruled that civil courts, not military commissions, have sole and exclusive jurisdiction over the offense of estafa where the goods stolen are valued at not more than 6,000 pesos. The respondent, Hermogenes Mariano, was accused of estafa involving goods worth P4,797.35. As the penalty for estafa exceeds six months imprisonment, it falls under the original jurisdiction of civil courts. While a military commission convicted the mayor of malversation involving the same goods, estafa and malversation are separate offenses. Therefore, the civil court retains jurisdiction over the estafa case against Mariano.

Uploaded by

Russell
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

5. People vs.

Mariano, 71 SCRA 604 months, or a fine of more than two hundred


pesos, (emphasis supplied)

By reason of the penalty imposed for the crime of estafa


G.R. No. L-40527 June 30, 1976 which exceeds six (6) months imprisonment, the offense
alleged to have been committed by the accused, now
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, respondent, Mariano, falls under the original
vs. jurisdiction of courts of first instance.
HERMOGENES MARIANO and HON. AMBROSIO M.
GERALDEZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Estafa and malversation are two separate and distinct
Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch V, offenses
respondents.
The Military Commission, is without power or authority to
hear and determine the particular offense charged against
respondent Mariano, hence, there is no concurrent
CASE FILED: Petition for Certiorari jurisdiction between it and respondent court to speak of.
FACTS: Private respondent Hermogenes Mariano was
accused of committing estafa a total of $717.50 or Estafa as described in the Information filed in Criminal
P4,797.35 worth of US excess property of USAID/NEC for Case falls within the sole exclusive jurisdiction of civil
the use and benefit of municipality of Bulacan. courts.

In his motion to quash, Mariano claimed that Respondent Judge is directed to proceed with the trial of
Criminal Case
1. the items which were the subject matter of the
Information against him were the same items for
which Mayor Constantino A. Nolasco of San Jose
del Monte, province of Bulacan, was indicted
before a Military Commission under a charge of
malversation of public property, and for which
Mayor Nolasco had been found guilty and
sentenced to imprisonment

2. and that the Court of First Instance of Bulacan had


lost jurisdiction over the case against him

respondent Judge issued an Order granting the motion to


quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, considering
that the Military Commission had already taken
cognizance of the malversation case against Mayor
Nolasco involving the same subject matter in its
concurrent jurisdiction with CFI/

ISSUE: whether or not civil courts and military


commissions exercise concurrent jurisdiction over the
offense of estafa of goods valued at not more than six
thousand pesos and allegedly committed by a civilian.

RULING: NO

“Jurisdiction"- the power or capacity given by the law to a


court or tribunal to entertain, hear, and determine certain
controversies. (book ni judge, mao ni iya gikuha from this
case)"

"Criminal Jurisdiction" is necessarily the authority to


hear and try a particular offense and impose the
punishment for it. 6

Judiciary Act of 1948 where in its Section 44 (f) it is


provided:

SEC. 44. Original jurisdiction. — Courts of First


Instance shall have original jurisdiction:

(f) In all criminal cases in which the penalty


provided by law is imprisonment for more than six

You might also like