People vs.

Lagon, 185 SCRA 442

Summary of facts:
On July 1976, a criminal information was filed with the City Court of RoxasCity
charging private respondent Libertad Lagon with the crime of estafaunder
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 penaltyprescribed by law for the offense charged was beyond the court’s
authority toimpose. The judge held that the jurisdiction of a court to try a
criminalaction is determined by the law in force at a time of the institution of
theaction, and not by the law in force at the time of the commission of thecrime.
Hence, a petition for Review brought by the People, arguing that the
CityCourt erred in dismissing the case

Issue
Whether or not the City Court had committed reversible error in dismissing
thecriminal information?
Whether or not, in applying PD No. 818 to the present case,
there is adisregard of the rule against retroactivity of penal laws?

Ruling:
No. The Court ruled that petitioner (People) has failed to show that the CityCourt
had committed reversible error in dismissing the criminal information.Under the
penultimate paragraph of Section 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, itappears that at
the time of the commission of the offense in April 1975, thepenalty imposable for
estafa under Art. 315 of the RPC was arresto mayor inits maximum period; therefore
it shows that the offense clearly fell within thejurisdiction of the City Court of
Roxas City. However, P.D. No. 818 (effectiveOctober 1975) increased the
penalty imposable for the offense to prisionmayor in its medium
period.It is firmly settled doctrine that the subject matter jurisdiction of a
court incriminal law matters is properly measured by the law in effect at the time
of thecommencement of a criminal action, rather than by the law in effect at the
timeof the commission of the offense charged. Thus, in accordance with the
aboverule, jurisdiction over the instant case pertained to the then Court
of FirstInstance of Roxas City considering that P.D. No. 818 had
increased theimposable penalty for the offense charged in Criminal Case No. 7362
to alevel in excess of the maximum penalty which a city court could impose

No. In apply P.D. No. 818, does not disregard the rule against retroactivityof
penal laws. In the first place, subject-matter jurisdiction in criminal cases
isdetermined by the authority of the court to impose the penalty
imposableunder the applicable statute given the allegations of a criminal
information.In the case at bar, the increased penalty provided by P.D. No. 818 is
obviouslyheavier than the penalty provided in par. 2(d) of Art. 315 of the RPC.
Shouldthe criminal information be refiled in the proper court, which is the RTC,
thecourt may not impose the more onerous penalty upon Lagon, but the RTC willb
remain vested with the subject-matter jurisdiction to try and decide the caseeven
though the penalty properly imposable, given the date of the commissionof the
offense, should be the lower penalty originally provided by the RPC.WHEREFORE, the
Court Resolved to DENY the Petition for Review forlack of merit. The Order
dated 2 December 1976 of the publicrespondent Presiding Judge of the
City Court of Roxas City is herebyAFFIRMED. No costs.

The requisites of subject matter jurisdiction:

-Legal authority: The court must have the legal authority granted by law to hear
and decide cases of a particular nature or subject matter. In this case, the City
Court of Roxas City had subject matter jurisdiction over criminal cases within its
jurisdictional limits, as determined by the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended.
-Properly alleged offense: The offense charged in the criminal information must
fall within the jurisdiction of the court. The court must have the power to impose
the penalty prescribed by law for the offense. In this case, at the time of the
alleged commission of the crime in April 1975, the offense charged fell within the
jurisdiction of the City Court based on the penalty prescribed for the offense.
-Time of institution: The court's jurisdiction is determined at the time of the
institution of the criminal action, which is the filing of the criminal
information. In this case, when the criminal prosecution was instituted in July
1976, the penalty imposable for the offense had been increased by a subsequent law.
As a result, the jurisdiction over the case shifted to the Regional Trial Court,
which had the authority to impose the increased penalty.