Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • People of The Philippines vs. Lagon

    Uploaded by

    Maria Gracia
    23 views1 page
    The City Court of Roxas City dismissed a criminal information charging Libertad Lagon with estafa. The Court ruled it did not have jurisdiction over the case because the penalty for estafa had been increased after the crime was committed to a level exceeding the Court's authority. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that subject matter jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined by the law in effect at the start of the case, not at the time of the offense. Thus jurisdiction properly belonged to the Court of First Instance as the penalty under the law in effect when the case began was beyond the City Court's authority.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    People of the Philippines vs. Lagon

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The City Court of Roxas City dismissed a criminal information charging Libertad Lagon with estafa. The Court ruled it did not have jurisdiction over the case because the penalty for estafa had been increased after the crime was committed to a level exceeding the Court's authority. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that subject matter jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined by the law in effect at the start of the case, not at the time of the offense. Thus jurisdiction properly belonged to the Court of First Instance as the penalty under the law in effect when the case began was beyond the City Court's authority.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    23 views1 page

    People of The Philippines vs. Lagon

    Uploaded by

    Maria Gracia
    The City Court of Roxas City dismissed a criminal information charging Libertad Lagon with estafa. The Court ruled it did not have jurisdiction over the case because the penalty for estafa had been increased after the crime was committed to a level exceeding the Court's authority. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that subject matter jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined by the law in effect at the start of the case, not at the time of the offense. Thus jurisdiction properly belonged to the Court of First Instance as the penalty under the law in effect when the case began was beyond the City Court's authority.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    People of the Philippines vs.

    Lagon
    G.R. No. 45815, April 18, 1990

    Facts:
    On July 1976, a criminal information was filed with the City Court of
    Roxas City charging private respondent Libertad Lagon with the crime of estafa
    under paragraph 2(d) of Art. 315 of the RPC. The Information charged Lagonfor
    allegedly issued a check as payment for good which she knew that she didnot
    have sufficient funds to cover the check. The City Court dismissed the
    information upon the ground that the penalty prescribed by law for the offense
    charged was beyond the court’s authority to impose. The judge held that the
    jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action is determined by the law in force
    at a time of the institution of the action, and not by the law in force at the time
    of the commission of the crime. Hence, a petition for Review brought by the
    People, arguing that the City Court erred in dismissing the case.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the City Court had committed reversible error in
    dismissing the criminal information.

    Held:
    No. The Court ruled that petitioner has failed to show that the City Court
    had committed reversible error in dismissing the criminal information. Under
    the second to last paragraph of Section 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, it
    appears that at the time of the commission of the offense in April 1975, the
    penalty imposable for estafa under Art. 315 of the RPC was arresto mayor in its
    maximum period; therefore it shows that the offense clearly fell within the
    jurisdiction of the City Court of Roxas City. However, P.D. No. 818 (effective
    October 1975) increased the penalty imposable for the offense to
    prision mayor in its medium period. It is firmly settled doctrine that the subject
    matter jurisdiction of a court in criminal law matters is properly measured by
    the law in effect at the time of the commencement of a criminal action, rather
    than by the law in effect at the time of the commission of the offense charged.
    Thus, in accordance with the above rule, jurisdiction over the instant case
    pertained to the then Court of First Instance of Roxas City considering
    that P.D. No. 818 had increased the imposable penalty for the offense
    charged in Criminal Case No. 7362 to a level in excess of the maximum penalty
    which a city court could impose.

    You might also like