People of the Philippines v. Hon.

Judge Palma and Romulo Intia y Morada

Case No. 219
G.R. No. L-44113 (March 31, 1977)
Chapter I, Page 2, Footnote No.3

FACTS:
Private Respondent Romulo, 17 years of age, was charged with vagrancy. Respondent Judge dismissed the
case on the ground that her court “has no jurisdiction to take further cognizance of this case” without prejudice to
the re-filing thereof in the Juvenile Court, because he believed that jurisdiction over 16 years olds up to under 21
was transferred to the Juvenile Court by the issuance of PD 603 or the Child and Youth Welfare Code, which defines
youthful offenders as those over 9 years of age but under 21 at the time of the commission of the offense.

ISSUE:
W/N the issuance of PD 603 transferred the case of the accused from the regular courts to the Juvenile
Court.

HELD:
The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court expressly confers upon it a special and limited jurisdiction over
“criminal cases wherein the accused is under 16 years of age at the time of the filing of the case”. The subsequent
issuance of PD 603 known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code and defines a youth offender as “one who is over 9
years of age but under 21 at the time of the commission of the offense” did not by such definition transfer
jurisdiction over criminal cases involving accused who are 16 and under 21 years of age from the regular courts to
the Juvenile Court.