13. PEOPLE v. Hon. Rolando R.

Villaraza
G.R. No. L-46228 January 17, 1978| J. Aquino | Valera
TOPIC: Ex post Facto Law

DOCTRINE: The increased penalty does not apply to the estafa committed by
Puerto in 1974. To apply it to Puerto would make the decree an ex post facto
law. Its retroactive application is prohibited by art 21 and 22 of the RPC and sec
12 Art IV of the constitution

FACTS:
1. On Dec 1975, A certain Cesar Puerto was charged with estafa for
having issued Oct 1974
2. City Judge Villaraza noted that the accused had waived the second
stage of preliminary investigation. He then directed the case to be
elevated to the court of first instance or the Circuit Criminal Court.
3. The CFI returned the case to the city court because the case falls within
the concurrent jurisdiction of the 2 courts and the city court as it was
the first court which took cognizance of the case should try it.
4. The City judge disagreed, in his order in April 1977, he directed the re-
elevation of the case.
- His view was the case falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction
of the CFI because estafa is punishable by prision mayor medium
period under PD 818 which took effect on Oct, 1975
5. This order of the City Judge was assailed in a petition for certiorari to
the SC.

ISSUE/S:
1. W/N Judge Villaraza’s view over the proper jurisdiction of the case
correct?– NO

HELD/RULING;
 The SC held that the case was properly filed with the City court which
has original jurisdiction over since the Estafa imputed to Puerto is
punishable under Art 315 of the RPC by arresto mayor maximum to
prision correccional minimum.
 The view of Judge Villaraza that the penalty of prision mayor medium
as imposed by PD818 applies only to swindling by means of issuing
bouncing checks which was committed on or after Oct 22, 1975.
 The increased penalty does not apply to the estafa committed by
Puerto in 1974. To apply it to Puerto would make the decree an ex post
facto law. Its retroactive application is prohibited by art 21 and 22 of
the RPC and sec 12 Art IV of the constitution
 The city court has jurisidiction because the Judiary law provides that
city courts has jurisdiction to try parties charged where the penalty
does not exceed prision correccional.