You are on page 1of 2

Batchnumber:1,Casenumber:12,Preparedby:CarmelCarreon

FerrervPecson
GR No. L-5221 - 92 Phil 172 - 1952-08-27

FACTS:
PetitionerFerrer,driverofajeepney,sideswipedanotherjeepneytherebycausingacollision,and
inflictingonapassengerphysicalinjuries,whichwillpreventthesaidoffendedpartyfrom
engaginginhiswork.TheMTCfoundhimguiltyofseriousphysicalinjuriesthroughreckless
imprudence.PetitionerthenappealedthecasetotheRTC.
PetitionerfiledamotiontodismissthecaseonthegroundthattheMTChadnojurisdictionover
theoffenseand,consequently,theRTChadnoappellatejurisdiction.Hecontendsthatthecourt
onlyhadjusrisdictionovercrimeswithapenaltyofnotmorethan6months,andhiscrimeunder
thelawinforceatthetimeofcommission,whichwastheRevisedMotorVehicleLaw,is
punishablewith6yearsmax.RespondentJudgePecsondeniedthemotion,butuponmotionfor
reconsideration,thesamejudgegrantedthemotionanddismissedthecaseforlackofjurisdiction.
OnamotionforreconsiderationfiledbytheFiscal,respondentJudgerevokedhisorderof
dismissingthecase.
Petitioneraskedforreconsiderationofthisorderandupondenialofhismotion,hefiledthe
presentpetitionforcertioraritorevoketheorderofdenyingthedismissalandreinstatetheorder
ofdismissingthecase.

ISSUE:
WhetherornottheMTChadjurisdiction

HELD:
No.Thejurisdictionofthecourttotryacriminalcaseistobedeterminedbythelawatthetimeof
theinstitutionoftheaction.
Atthetimethecomplaintwasfiled,thelawpenalizingtheactimputedtothepetitioner
wastheRevisedMotorVehicleLaw(ActNo.3932),sec67ofwhichprovidesthatifasaresultof
negligenceorrecklessorunreasonablyfastdrivinganyaccidentoccursresultingindeathor
seriousbodilyinjurytoanyperson.Punishmentisimprisonmentfornotlessthan15daysnor
morethan6yearsinthediscretionofthecourt.ThecriminaljurisdictionofaMTCasdefinedin
theJudiciaryActof1948isconfinedtooffensesinwhichthepenaltyisnotmore6months.From
this,itisclearthattheMTChadnojurisdictionoverthiscasewhereamaximumpenalty6years
maybeimposed;andifithadnooriginaljurisdiction,theRTCpresidedoverbyJudgePecsonhad
likewisenoappellatejurisdiction.
Sec67oftheRMVLwasamendedbysec16ofRA.587,inthesensethatactsofrecklessdriving
resultingindeathorseriousbodilyinjuryuponanypersonshallbepunishedundertheprovisions

oftheRevisedPenalCode.Butthisactmaynotbegivenretroactiveeffectsoastoconferonthe
municipalcourtjurisdiction,whichitdidnothavewhenittriedanddecidedthecaseagainst
petitioner.
HiscrimeshouldbeprosecutedunderRMVLandnotundertheRPC.
ItmaybetruethattheprovisionsoftheRPCaremorefavorabletothepetitionerinthiscaseas
regardsthepenalty,butwhentheveryaccused(hereinpetitioner)farfrominvokingthebenefits
ofsaidRA.587,disregardsitandinvokestheRMVLwhichwasinforceatthetimethattheacts
imputedtohimwerecommitted,atleastforthatreasonalonethequestionofretroactivitycannot
andwillnotbeconsidered.
RespondentscontendthatundertheJudiciaryActof1948,theMTCisgivenjurisdictiontotry
criminalcasesofassaultswheretheintenttokillisnotevidentfromtheevidence,regardlessof
thepenaltyattachedtothecrime.Butitisobviousthatactsofnegligenceintheoperationofa
motorvehicle,whichcausedacollisionandresultinphysicalinjuriescanhardlyberegardedas
assaultswithouttheintenttokill.
SCgrantedpetitionforcertiorari,andreinstatedorderofrespondentjudgedismissingthecasefor
lackofjurisdiction.