21 People v Villaraza ARTS

PEOPLE v. HON. ROLANDO R. VILLARAZA, and CAESAR PUERTO

G.R. No. L-46228|Jan. 17, 1978|2nd Division|AQUINO|Rule 65|Retroactive effect of penal laws
DOCTRINE:  Increase in penalty for estafa by means of issuing bouncing checks effected by Presidential Decree 818 on
October 22, 1975 is of no retroactive application. The penalty of prision mayor medium, or eight years and one day to ten
years, imposed by Presidential Decree No. 818, applies only to swindling by means of issuing bouncing checks which was
committed on or after October 22, 1975. That increased penalty does not apply to estafa committed on October 16, 1974.
To apply it to the accused would make the decree an ex post facto law. Its retroactive application is prohibited by articles
21 and 22 of the Revised Penal Code and section 12, Article IV of the Constitution.

CASE SUMMARY: Two courts - the city court of Cagayan de Oro City and the Court of First Instance of Misamis
Oriental, Cagayan de Oro Branch VIII - disagree upon which court’s jurisdiction should the Puerto case reside in. The
Supreme Court found the case to be within the city court’s jurisdiction.
FACTS:
 Dec. 3, 1975: An assistant city fiscal charged Caesar Puerto with Estafa in the city court of Cagayan de Oro city for
issuing 2 bouncing checks for the total sum of P4,966.63 on Oct. 16, 1974.
 March 31, 1976: City Judge Villaraza noted that the accused had waived the second stage of the preliminary
investigation
o He directed the case to be elevated to the CFI or the Circuit Criminal Court for trial
 Feb. 3, 1977: The CFI of Misamis Oriental, Cagayan de Oro returned the case to the city court upon petition of the
prosecution
o The case falls within the concurrent jurisdiction of the two courts
o The city court, as the first court which took cognizance of the case, should try it.
 April 21, 1977: Disagreeing with the CFI, respondent City Judge Villaraza directed the re-elevation of the case
o The case falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the CFI because estafa committed by the accused is
punishable by prision mayor medium under P.D. 818, which amended Art. 315 of the RPC.
 May 27, 1977, the office of the city fiscal filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court.

RULING: W/N the case was properly filed with the city court - YES.
 Estafa is punishable under article 315 of the Revised Penal Code by arresto mayor max to prision correccional min or
4 months and one day to 2 years and 4 months.
o The penalty imposed by the Presidential Decree No. 818 applies only to swindling by means of issuing
bouncing checks which was committed on or after Oct. 22, 1975.
o That increased penalty does not apply to the estafa committed by Puerto on October 16, 1974.
o To apply it to Puerto would make the decree an ex post facto law which is prohibited by Arts. 21 and 22
of the RPC and Sec. 12, Art. IV of the Constitution.
 The city court has original jurisdiction over the case because, as provided by the Judiciary Law: "judges of city courts
shall have like jurisdiction as the Court of First Instance to try parties charged with an offense committed within their
respective jurisdictions, in which the penalty provided by law does not exceed prision correccional or imprisonment
for not more than six years or fine not exceeding six thousand pesos or both."
 It was not necessary for the city court to have conducted the preliminary investigation of the case. The filing of the
information by the fiscal presupposes that he had conducted the requisite preliminary investigation

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the order of the Court of First Instance, returning the case to the city court, is affirmed
and the two orders of the respondent city judge, elevating the case to the Court of First Instance, are set aside.

NOTES: