Concon v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Gregorio A. Concon was charged with grave threats for allegedly threatening to kill Cecilio Abella with a shotgun. The City Court of Cebu found him guilty and sentenced him to one month and one day of arresto mayor and a fine of P200.00. 2. Procedural History: Following his conviction on July 2, 1968, Concon filed a notice of appeal, intending to appeal to the Court of First Instance of Cebu. However, the City Court forwarded the records to the Court of Appeals, which docketed the case as CA-G. R. No. 09188. After two years, Concon moved for the records to be remanded to the Court of First Instance, arguing it had appellate jurisdiction. This motion was denied, as was a subsequent motion for reconsideration. 3. The Petition: This petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition seeks to enjoin the Court of Appeals from hearing the appeal. Concon argues, based on Section 42 of the Revised Charter of Cebu City (Rep. Act 3857), that the appeal should lie with the Court of First Instance. The Supreme Court, however, notes that the offense fell under the concurrent jurisdiction of the City Court and Court of First Instance under the Judiciary Act of 1948, and that appeals from such cases tried in the City Court's original jurisdiction were directly appealable to the Court of Appeals, as per Section 87(c) of the Judiciary Act.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal from the City Court of Cebu, in a case where it exercised its concurrent original jurisdiction over grave threats, should have been lodged with the Court of First Instance or the Court of Appeals, considering Section 42 of the Revised Charter of Cebu City and Section 87(c) of the Judiciary Act of 1948. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in taking cognizance of the appeal, given the jurisdictional rules in place before the implementation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Court of Appeals correctly took cognizance of the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of appellate jurisdiction: The Court clarified that Section 42 of the Revised Charter of Cebu City, which provides for appeals to the Court of First Instance, applies only to cases decided by the City Court in the exercise of its exclusive original jurisdiction. In this case, the offense of grave threats, punishable under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code, fell within the concurrent jurisdiction of the City Court and the Court of First Instance under the Judiciary Act of 1948. Pursuant to Section 87(c) of the Judiciary Act of 1948, appeals in cases filed with city court judges, tried and decided on the merits, were appealable direct to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, as the case may be. Therefore, the appeal was correctly certified to the Court of Appeals. The Court emphasized that this ruling applies only to appeals perfected before the implementation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 on January 17, 1983. The new law, the Judiciary Reorganization Act, repealed the relevant provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1948 and redefined court jurisdictions, with regional trial courts now exercising appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
Main Doctrine
Under the Judiciary Act of 1948, appeals from cases decided by City Courts in the exercise of their concurrent original jurisdiction with Courts of First Instance were appealable directly to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, not to the Court of First Instance.