Digest: Commission on Elections v. Noynay (292 SCRA 254, 1998)
Present case falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC, not MTC. In this issue, two laws should be juxtaposed. On the one hand, the Omnibus Election Code states that RTC has jurisdiction for violations of the code, except on cases of failure to register or vote. One the other, a BP states that MTC has jurisdiction for cases with penalties of one year to six years. In this case, the RTC implemented the BP. However, the present court finds his ruling mistaken in that in the same BP providing MTC jurisdiction, it is stated that MTC has jurisdiction only in cases that does not fall within RTC jurisdiction. Omnibus Election Code gives jurisdiction to RTC on violates of the code. The violation presented in this case is a violation of the code. This provided, RTC has jurisdiction, regardless if the penalty is less than six years. Thus, Judge Noynay erred in ruling that RTC has no jurisdiction.
Facts:
Pursuant to a minute resolution by the COMELEC on October 29, 1996, nine
informations for violation of Sec. 261(i) of the Omnibus Election Code were
filed with Branch 23 of the RTC of Allen, Northern Samar.
In an Order issued on August 25, 1997, public respondent, presiding judge of
Branch 23, motu proprio ordered the records of the cases to be withdrawn and
directed the COMELEC Law Department to file the cases with the appropriate
Municipal Trial Court on the ground that under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, the
Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction over the cases since the maximum
imposable penalty in each of the cases does not exceed six years of
imprisonment.
All the accused are uniformly charged for Violation of Sec. 261(i) of the
Omnibus Election Code, which carries a penalty of not less than one (1) year
but not more than six (6) years of imprisonment and not subject to Probation
plus disqualification to hold public office or deprivation of the right of
suffrage.
Motions for reconsiderations filed by the COMELEC have been denied. Petitioners
then filed the instant petition.
In its Manifestation, the Office of the Solicitor General, it is “adopting” the
instant petition on the ground that the challenged orders of public respondent
“are clearly not in accordance with existing laws and jurisprudence.”
Public respondent avers that it is the duty of counsel for private respondents
interested in sustaining the challenged orders to appear for and defend him.
In their Comment, private respondents maintain that R.A. No. 7691 has divested
the Regional Trial Courts of jurisdiction over offenses where the imposable
penalty is not more than 6 years of imprisonment; moreover, R.A. 7691 expressly
provides that all laws, decrees, and orders inconsistent with its provisions
are deemed repealed or modified accordingly. They then conclude that
since the election offense in question is punishable with imprisonment of not
more than 6 years, it is cognizable by Municipal Trial Courts.
Issue:
Whether
R.A. No. 7691 has divested Regional Trial Courts of jurisdiction over election
offenses, which are punishable with imprisonment of not exceeding six (6)
years.
Ruling:
Under
Section 268 of the Omnibus Election Code, Regional Trial Courts have exclusive
original jurisdiction to try and decide any criminal action or proceedings for
violation of the Code except those relating to the offense of failure to
register or failure to vote.
In Morales v. Court of Appeals, the court held that by virtue of the exception
provided for in the opening sentence of Section 32 of B.P. Blg. 129, the
exclusive original jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts does not cover those criminal cases
which by specific provisions of law fall within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, regardless of
the penalty prescribed therefor. Otherwise stated, even if those excepted
cases are punishable by imprisonment of not exceeding six (6) years (i.e.,
prision correccional, arresto mayor, or arresto menor), jurisdiction thereon is
retained by the Regional Trial Courts or the Sandiganbayan, as the case may be.
Among the examples cited in Morales as falling within the exception provided
for in the opening sentence of Section 32 are cases under (1) Section 20 of
B.P. Blg. 129; (2) Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended; (3) the
Decree on Intellectual Property; and (4) the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as
amended.
Undoubtedly, pursuant to Section 268 of the Omnibus Election Code, election
offenses also fall within the exception.
As we stated in Morales, jurisdiction is conferred by the Constitution or by
Congress. Outside the cases enumerated in Section 5(2) of Article VIII of
the Constitution, Congress has the plenary power to define, prescribe, and
apportion the jurisdiction of various courts. Congress may thus provide
by law that a certain class of cases should be exclusively heard and determined
by one court. Such law would be a special law and must be construed as an
exception to the general law on jurisdiction of courts, namely, the Judiciary
Act of 1948, as amended, and the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980.
R.A. No. 7691 can by no means be considered as a special law on
jurisdiction; it is merely an amendatory law intended to amend specific
sections of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. Hence, R.A. No.
7691 does not have the effect of repealing laws vesting upon Regional Trial
Courts or the Sandiganbayan exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide
the cases therein specified. That Congress never intended that R.A. No.
7691 should repeal such special provisions is indubitably evident from the fact
that it did not touch at all the opening sentence of Section 32 of B.P. Blg.
129 providing for the exception.
It is obvious that respondent judge did not read at all the opening sentence of
Section 32 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended. It is thus an opportune time, as
any, to remind him, as well as other judges, of his duty to be studious of the
principles of law, to administer his office with due regard to the integrity of
the system of the law itself, to be faithful to the law, and to maintain
professional competence.
Instant petition is GRANTED.
Source:
0 Comments