People vs.

Mariano
Facts:
The oIIice oI the Provincial Fiscal oI Bulacan Iiled an InIormation accusing Mariano oI estaIa.
Mariano was the Liaison OIIicer oI Mayor Nolasco and is authorized to receive and be receipted
Ior US excess property oI USAID/NEC Ior the use and beneIit oI the municipality. The property
received were electric cables and cable powers amounting to P4,797.35 which he had a duty to
deliver to the Mayor. However he willIully, unlawIully and Ieloniously, with grave abuse oI
conIidence and deceit, misappropriate, misapply and convert to his own personal use and beneIit
the items.
Mariano Iiled a motion to quash the InIormation claiming that the court had no jurisdiction. He
claimed that the items which were the subject matter oI the InIormation against him were the
same items Ior which Mayor Nolasco was indicted by the Military Commission under a charge oI
malversation and Iound guilty. He claimed that inasmuch as the case against Mayor Nolasco has
already been decided by the Military Tribunal, the CFI oI Bulacan had lost jurisdiction over him.
Respondent judge granted the motion to quash stating that since the Military Commission had
already taken cognizance oI the malversation case involving the same subject matter in its
concurrent jurisdiction with the Court, the case Ior estaIa has already been heard and decided.
Issue:
Whether or not civil courts and military commissions exercise concurrent jurisdiction over estaIa
and committed by a civilian
Held: there is no concurrent jurisdiction
Ratio:
The question oI jurisdiction oI respondent CFI is to be resolved on the basis oI the law or statute
providing Ior or deIining its jurisdiction. The Judiciary Act oI 1948 in Section 44 (I) provides the
CFI shall have original jurisdiction in all criminal cases in which the penalty provided by law is
imprisonment Ior more than six months or Iine oI more than 200 pesos. EstaIa Ialls under the
original jurisdiction oI CFI.
Jurisdiction oI a court is determined by the statute in Iorce at the time oI the commencement oI
the action. At the time the criminal case was Iiled on Dec 18, 1974, the law in Iorce vesting
jurisdiction upon said court is the Judiciary Act oI 1948. General Order No. 49 dated Oct 4, 1974,redeIines the
jurisdiction oI military tribunals over certain oIIenses, and estaIa and malversationare not enumerated therein.
ThereIore, the Military Commission is not vested with jurisdictionover the crime oI estaIa.
We do not have here a situation involving two tribunals with concurrent jurisdiction over a
particular crime so as to apply the rule that whoever takes cognizance Iirst acquires jurisdiction
exclusive oI the other. The Military Commission is without power or authority to hear and
determine the crime oI estaIa against Mariano hence there is no concurrent jurisdiction to speak
oI. EstaIa Ialls within the sole exclusive jurisdiction oI civil courts.