Flores, Jude Genesis

Atienza v. People
G.R. No. 188694, February 12, 2014

FACTS:

This case follows employees in the CA Reporter’s Division.

Atienza and Castro are employees of the Court of Appeals holding
positions of Budget Officer I and Utility Worker I, respectively.
Castro invited Juanito to attend Atienza's birthday. In the event,
Castro introduced Juanito to Dario and asked him to assist Dario in
searching for a CA decision (Mateo Fernando v. Heirs of Tuason, Inc.
or the Fernando case.)
Juanito returned to the office with Dario to search for the file.
Juanito observed that while Dario was scanning through 3 volumes of
court decisions, he was comparing its pages to the discolored pages
that he was holding. After he scanned Volumes 260, 265, and 267, he
placed check marks on the papers that he was holding.
On a separate day, Dario asked Juanito to insert a decision
dated September 26, 1968 in one of the volumes of the court's
decisions. But Juanito refused and left.
Atienza offered P50,000 to Juanito in exchange for Volume 260,
but Juanito also turned him down. Atienza ridiculed him for refusing.
Juanito reported what happened to the Assistant Chief (Atty.
Macapagal) of the CA Reporter's Division who instructed him to hide
Volumes 260, 265, and 267 in a safe place. But it was Volume 266
that was soon found to be missing. Juanito reported the same to Atty.
Macapagal.
Several days after Volume 266 went missing, an officemate
gave Juanito a bag which contained the missing volume,
gift-wrapped. According to the clerk, Castro asked him to deliver the
package to Juanito. The records of the office did not reveal who
borrowed the file.
When Juanito compared the contents of Volume 266 with the
index of decisions, he noticed that there were 2 documents inserted:
● Resolution dated February 11, 1969, apparently penned by
Associate Justice Enriquez and concurred by Justices
Gatmaitan and Soriano, recalling and setting aside the earlier
judgment issued in the Fernando case.
 ● Decision dated April 16, 1970, also by Justice Enriquez and
concurred in by Justices Perez and Mendoza, amending the
original decision in the Fernando case
Juanito reported his findings to Atty. Macapagal who then
informed the Chief of CA Reporter's Division. They found that the
insertions were not reflected in the compilation of the original
decisions and resolutions of Justice Enriquez. The incident was
reported to the CA Presiding Justice De Pano Jr. who immediately
requested the NBI to investigate.
The inserted decision and resolution were analyzed in the
laboratory and compared with another decision in the same volume.
Results confirmed that Volume 266 was altered and the signatures of
the justices on the insert documents were forged.
Following NBI’s findings in its investigation, NBI and the
Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman
filed a complaint against Atienza, Castro, and Dario before the
Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau of the OMB, for:
● Falsification of Public Document
● Violation of Section 3(a) of RA 3019
● Violation of Section 848 of RA 6713
The RA 3019 and RA 6713 charges were dismissed for
insufficiency, but probable cause was found to charge Atienza,
Castro, and Dario for Robbery (Art. 299) and Falsification of Public
Document under Art. 172(1) in relation to Art. 171(6). Informations
were filed in the RTC.
Atienza and Castro posted bail. During their arraignment, they
pleaded "not guilty" to the charges. Dario remained at large.
RTC found Atienza and Castro are guilty for Falsification of
public documents. CA affirmed RTC's decision.
In their petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court,
Atienza and Castro raised for the first time that RTC did not have
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the falsification case.

ISSUES:
1. Does the RTC have jurisdiction over the falsification case which is
punishable by prison correccional medium and maximum?
2. Are Atienza and Castro precluded from questioning the trial court’s
jurisdictional over the subject matter of the case?
RULING:
1. No, RTC has no jurisdiction.
RTC did not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case since it
is punishable by prision correccional medium and max periods.
During the time of this case, it entailed imprisonment of 2 yrs and 1
day to 6 years and a fine of not more than P5,000.
The case falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MeTC, MTC,
MTCC, MCTC under Sec 32(2) of BP 129 (Judiciary Reorganization
Act of 1980) as amended by RA 7691.
This jurisdictional defect warrants their acquittal without prejudice to
administrative liability.

2. No, they may question it at any stage of the proceeding.

Even though they raised the issue of jurisdictional defect for the first
time during their petition to the Supreme Court, Atienza and Castro
are not precluded from questioning the same.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by the
Constitution or the law and cannot be acquired through a waiver or
enlarged by the omission of the parties or conferred by the
acquiescence of the court.
The rule is well-settled that lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Hence, questions of
jurisdiction may be cognizable even if raised for the first time on
appeal.