People v. Ocampo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Marita Ocampo y Pure, was charged with attempted theft in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The information alleged that she opened the bag of the offended party, which contained P202.00, with the intent to steal it, but was unable to complete the crime due to causes independent of her will. Procedural History: The accused waived her right to present evidence and was convicted by the trial court, which sentenced her to six months and one day of destierro, with accessory penalties and costs. She appealed to the Court of Appeals, assigning an error concerning the trial court's jurisdiction. Due to this jurisdictional question, the case was certified to the Supreme Court. The Appeal: The appellant's primary contention on appeal to the Supreme Court was that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to try the case. This argument was predicated on the nature of the offense charged, namely, attempted theft, and the penalty imposable therefor, which she argued fell within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the municipal court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction to try the offense of attempted theft where the value of the property involved is P202.00. Whether the circumstance of recidivism affects the jurisdiction of the court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of First Instance of Manila did not have jurisdiction to try the offense of attempted theft. The decision of the lower court was reversed, without prejudice to the prosecution re-filing the information with the proper court. No pronouncement as to costs was made.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: Whether the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction to try the offense of attempted theft where the value of the property involved is P202.00. The Supreme Court held that the Court of First Instance did not have jurisdiction. The offense charged was attempted theft, and under Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for an attempted offense is one degree lower than that prescribed for the consummated felony. For theft where the value of the property stolen is more than P200 but does not exceed P2,000, the penalty for the consummated crime is prison correccional in its minimum and medium periods, as per Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code. Reducing this penalty by one degree, as required for an attempted offense, results in destierro in its maximum period to arresto mayor in its minimum period. This penalty, specifically the imprisonment component not exceeding two months, falls within the original jurisdiction of the municipal court as provided by Section 87(b) of Republic Act No. 296, which grants municipal courts jurisdiction over offenses punishable by imprisonment of not more than six months, or a fine of not more than P200, or both. While Section 87(c) of Republic Act No. 296 pertains to larceny, embezzlement, and estafa where the amount involved does not exceed P200, it refers to consummated acts, not attempted ones. Therefore, the attempted theft of P202.00, with the reduced penalty, correctly falls under the municipal court's jurisdiction, not the Court of First Instance. On Issue 2: Whether the circumstance of recidivism affects the jurisdiction of the court. The Supreme Court stated that the fact that the accused is a recidivist is of no moment in determining jurisdiction. Recidivism is an aggravating circumstance that can at most increase the penalty within the range provided by law for the offense. However, it does not alter the nature of the offense or the base penalty prescribed, which are the determinants of jurisdiction. Since the offense of attempted theft, even with the potential for aggravation, would still result in a penalty that places it within the original jurisdiction of the municipal court, the presence of recidivism does not divest the municipal court of its jurisdiction or grant it to the Court of First Instance. The jurisdiction is fixed by the law defining the offense and its corresponding penalty, and aggravating circumstances are considered only in the imposition of the penalty within that jurisdictional framework.
Main Doctrine
The jurisdiction of a court over a criminal offense is determined by the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged, not by the penalty actually imposed. In cases of attempted offenses, the penalty is reduced by one degree from that prescribed for the consummated felony. Specifically, municipal courts have original jurisdiction over offenses where the penalty does not exceed six months imprisonment or a fine of P200, or both. The classification of offenses under Section 87(c) of Republic Act No. 296, pertaining to larceny, embezzlement, and estafa, applies to consummated acts and not to attempted or frustrated offenses.