Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

PEOPLE VS.

MARIANOGR L-40527 JUNE 30, 1976Facts: Hermogenes Mariano, the appointed liaison officer of a municipality inthe Province of Bulacan was charged with estafa of goods amountingto no more than 6,000 pesos. Mariano then filed with the court amotion to quash all information. The respondent judge then grantedthe motion on the basis that the court indeed had no jurisdiction overthe case, citing that a military commission had already ruled on amalversation case against Mayor Nolasco involving the sameproperties questioned at bar. The respondent judge noted that casehaving been heard and decided by a competent tribunal gives no jurisdiction to his court to pass anew judgment on the same subjectmatter. The PEOPLE then appealed and the Supreme Court havingciting the Judicial Act of 1948 and the fact that Estafa and Malversationare 2 different and distinct offense and that the military commissionhas no authority over the charges placed on Mariano, decided thatlower court committed a grave error in saying that they had no jurisdiction over the matter. As so ordered by the Supreme Court therespondent judge was to continue the criminal case against Mariano. The issues presented: Does the civil court & military commissions exercise concurrent jurisdiction over the case of the estafa of goods amounting to notmore than 6,000 Pesos. The Ruling: Military commissions have no authority over estafa cases and the courtof first instance has original jurisdiction as so implied by the JudicialAct of 1948. Ratio: The Judicial act of 1948 sec. 44 states that the Court of First Instanceshall have original jurisdiction in all criminal cases in which the penaltyprovided by the law is imprisonment for more than six months or afine of over 200 pesos. Estafa more than meets with requirementsneeded for the Court of First Instance to acquire original jurisdiction.

Manila Railroad Company v. Attorney- General et alG.R. NO. L-6891; March 8, 1912Carson, J.Facts: Defendant was a tenant of a large tract of land belonging to the Insular Government and known as theHacienda de los Frailes, and that such tenant and by virtue of a waiver by the Government of its claimto compensation in his favor, he is entitled to compensation for the value of the mejoras(improvements) on the land held by him as tenant and condemned in favor of the plaintiff company.The mejoras (improvements) on the tract of land in question consisted largely of plants and trees, suchas naranjitos, abacas, platanos, and trees of many other varieties. Defendant questions the value of certain mejoras which are alleged to have been either destroyed or used by the agents and

employeesof the plaintiff company. Plaintiffs also claim the value of certain improvements destroyed by firealleged to have been caused by agents and employees of plaintiff In addition to the mejoras there was a claim for P400, for money which defendant claimed he paid out in clearing and preparing for cultivation certain tracts of the land which where thereafter occupied andappropriated by the plaintiff company.The plaintiff's contention is that the amount of damages awarded is grossly excessive and unjust andthat the amount awarded in the report of the commissioners should have been reduced.Issue:Whether or not the defendant is liable for the damages caused by the fire.Held:No. The item of damages, which relates to the destruction of improvements on lands adjoining thecondemned lands and which is alleged to have been caused by fire, was not, a proper item for theconsideration of the commissioners. The land on which the mejoras (improvements) alleged to havebeen destroyed by fire were located, was not property taken and used by the plaintiff company for theconstruction of its railway line. If the plaintiff is liable for this item of damages such liability cannot beenforced in these proceedings. No part of the damages which are alleged to have resulted form thenegligent or willful acts of the agents of the company in setting fire to the mejoras (improvements) onlands adjoining the lands actually condemned should have been considered or allowed in theseproceedings.