FACTS:
Petitioner Jocelyn Asistio was charged with violation of Section 46 of the Cooperative Code of the Philippines RA No. 6938.
The accusatory portion of the Information filed against her reads:
That on or about July 27, 1998, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, being then the Chairperson and Managing Director of A. Mabini Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, and as such, have a complete control and exclusively manage the entire business of A. Mabini Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously acquires, in violation of her duty as such and the confidence reposed on her, personal interest or equity adverse to A. Mabini Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative by then and there entering into a contract with Coca Cola Products at A. Mabini Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative in her own personal capacity when in truth and in fact as the said accused fully well knew, the sale of Coca-Cola products at A. Mabini Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative should have accrued to A. Mabini Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative to the damage and prejudice of A. Mabini Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative.
Upon her arraignment, petitioner entered a plea of “not guilty.” Trial on the merits ensued.
On October 14, 2008, the RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, thus:
Considering that the MeTCs, MTC, MCTCs have exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offense or predicated thereon, and considering that violation of [Sec] 46 of R.A. 6938 would be punishable by imprisonment of not less than six (6) months nor more than one (1) year and a fine of not less than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00), or both at the discretion of the Court, this Court (RTC) has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the instant case which properly pertains to the first level courts.
The RTC denied for lack of merit the private prosecutor’s motion for reconsideration.
On appeal, the CA rendered a Decision reversing and setting aside the RTC Orders and remanded the case records to the RTC for further proceedings.
Hence, the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
ISSUE:
Whether the CA is correct in ruling that it is the RTC which has jurisdiction over the offense charged.
RULING:
The petition has no merit.
In criminal cases, the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the averments of the complaint or Information, in relation to the law prevailing at the time of the filing of the complaint or Information, and the penalty provided by law for the crime charged at the time of its commission.
Section 32 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended, provides that the MeTC has exclusive jurisdiction over offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six years, irrespective of the amount of fine:
Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal Cases. – Except in cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
x x x x
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount thereof: Provided, however, That in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof.
Offenses punishable with imprisonment exceeding six years, irrespective of the amount of fine, fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC, in accordance with Section 20 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended:
Section 20. Jurisdiction in criminal cases. — Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body, except those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter.
Petitioner failed to present any compelling reason to warrant a departure from the exhaustive CA ruling on why the RTC, not the MeTC, has jurisdiction over her criminal case for violation of Section 46 of RA 6938.