People v. Nazareno
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Manuel R. Tiro, Carlos Potot, Rogelio Inoc, and three others were charged with qualified theft of two female goats valued at P150.00 in the municipal court of Cordova, Cebu. Procedural History: Four of the accused questioned the municipal court's jurisdiction, arguing that qualified theft involving P150.00 was punishable by a penalty exceeding the limits of municipal court jurisdiction and thus fell under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance (CFI). The municipal court asserted jurisdiction, citing previous rulings. The accused then filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition in the CFI, which sustained their contention, ruling that the penalty, not the amount, determined jurisdiction in qualified theft cases, overturning prior concurrent jurisdiction rulings. The Petition: Municipal Judge Julian B. Pogoy moved for reconsideration, arguing for concurrent jurisdiction based on specific provisions of the Judiciary Law and prior rulings. The CFI denied the motion. Judge Pogoy then filed the instant certiorari action, seeking to annul the CFI's order asserting jurisdiction. The People of the Philippines were substituted as petitioner.
Issue(s)
Whether the theft of two goats valued at P150.00 constitutes qualified theft. Whether the municipal court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance over the said offense. Whether the Court of First Instance erred in taking cognizance of the petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition.
Ruling
The Court of First Instance's orders asserting original and exclusive jurisdiction are set aside. The municipal court has concurrent jurisdiction over the case.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the theft of two goats valued at P150.00 constitutes qualified theft: The Court held that the theft of two goats is not qualified theft. It clarified that goats do not fall under the category of "large cattle" as contemplated in Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code. The term "large cattle" specifically refers to carabaos, horses, mules, asses, and all members of the bovine family, as defined by law and dictionaries. While goats may be considered "cattle" or belong to the bovine family in a broader sense, the adjective "large" in the legal definition excludes them, indicating a legal distinction between large and small cattle. Therefore, the larceny of two goats valued at P150.00 is classified as simple theft, punishable under Article 309(4) of the Revised Penal Code with imprisonment ranging from two months and one day of arresto mayor medium to two years and four months of prision correccional minimum. On whether the municipal court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance over the said offense: The Court ruled that the municipal court has concurrent jurisdiction over the case. This is based on two criteria. Firstly, if the imposable penalty for simple theft of two goats (up to two years and four months imprisonment) is considered, it falls within the zone of concurrent jurisdiction as provided in Section 87(c) of the Judiciary Law, which covers offenses with penalties not exceeding three years imprisonment or a fine of P3,000.00. Secondly, if the value of the property stolen (P150.00) is considered, it falls within the concurrent jurisdiction provided in Section 87(b)(3) of the Judiciary Law, which pertains to larceny where the amount involved does not exceed P200.00. The Court emphasized that the ruling in Esperat vs. Avila was misleading in suggesting that jurisdiction in qualified theft cases is solely determined by the penalty and not the amount involved, and clarified the different zones of concurrent jurisdiction established by Sections 44(f) and 87 of the Judiciary Law. On whether the Court of First Instance erred in taking cognizance of the petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition: The Court found that the CFI erred in entertaining the petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition. Since the municipal court had concurrent jurisdiction over the offense, it had already acquired jurisdiction and could continue exercising it. The CFI does not possess supervisory jurisdiction over a municipal court in a case where they have concurrent jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition for certiorari should have been filed with the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, not the CFI. The CFI's order of November 8 and 28, 1974, asserting original and exclusive jurisdiction, were therefore set aside.
Main Doctrine
Theft of goats, regardless of value, is simple theft, not qualified theft, and falls within the concurrent jurisdiction of municipal courts and Courts of First Instance based on the imposable penalty and value, not solely on the classification of 'large cattle'.