Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 70 views

    02 People Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    mltoquero
    The RTC found Rico and Rickson Lipao guilty of illegally possessing forest products without a license in violation of forestry laws. The Court of Appeals dismissed the case for lack of RTC jurisdiction due to an expanded jurisdiction law for lower courts. However, the Supreme Court ruled that (1) jurisdiction is determined at the time of filing, (2) the RTC had jurisdiction when the case was filed, and (3) the new law expanding lower court jurisdiction did not apply retroactively. The Court of Appeals was directed to resolve the appeal on the merits.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    02 People Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    mltoquero
    70 views1 page
    The RTC found Rico and Rickson Lipao guilty of illegally possessing forest products without a license in violation of forestry laws. The Court of Appeals dismissed the case for lack of RTC jurisdiction due to an expanded jurisdiction law for lower courts. However, the Supreme Court ruled that (1) jurisdiction is determined at the time of filing, (2) the RTC had jurisdiction when the case was filed, and (3) the new law expanding lower court jurisdiction did not apply retroactively. The Court of Appeals was directed to resolve the appeal on the merits.

    Original Description:

    nat res

    Original Title

    02-People-vs-CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The RTC found Rico and Rickson Lipao guilty of illegally possessing forest products without a license in violation of forestry laws. The Court of Appeals dismissed the case for lack of RTC jurisdiction due to an expanded jurisdiction law for lower courts. However, the Supreme Court ruled that (1) jurisdiction is determined at the time of filing, (2) the RTC had jurisdiction when the case was filed, and (3) the new law expanding lower court jurisdiction did not apply retroactively. The Court of Appeals was directed to resolve the appeal on the merits.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    70 views1 page

    02 People Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    mltoquero
    The RTC found Rico and Rickson Lipao guilty of illegally possessing forest products without a license in violation of forestry laws. The Court of Appeals dismissed the case for lack of RTC jurisdiction due to an expanded jurisdiction law for lower courts. However, the Supreme Court ruled that (1) jurisdiction is determined at the time of filing, (2) the RTC had jurisdiction when the case was filed, and (3) the new law expanding lower court jurisdiction did not apply retroactively. The Court of Appeals was directed to resolve the appeal on the merits.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R.

    154557 (February 13, 2008)


    People of the Philippines, petitioner,
    vs.
    The Honorable Court of Appeals, 12th Division, Rico Lipao, and Rickson Lipao, respondents.

    Facts of the Case:

    On October 21, 1991, Rico Lipao and Rickson Lipao were found in possession of 8 pieces of round timbers and 160
    bundles of firewood with a market value of Php 3,100.00. Having failed to show the necessary license to transport
    the aforementioned forest products, Rico Lipao and Rickson Lipao were accused of violating Section 68 of
    Presidential Decree No. 705 as amended by Executive Order No. EO 277. Accordingly, the offense charged is
    punishable by Prision Correcional in its medium period is imprisonment from 2 years, 4 months and 1 day up to 4
    years and 2 months. While on its maximum, Prision Correcional is imprisonment from 4 years, 2 months and 1 day
    up to 6 years. The Surigao City RTC Branch 32 found private respondents guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
    offense charged.

    The private respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals. They argued that private respondent Rickson was
    subjected to an illegal search and seizure of the round posts and firewood which cannot be used as evidence against
    him. Moreover, private respondents argued that the prosecution failed to prove their lack of license to possess
    timber. They contended that since private respondent Rico is merely the owner of the pumpboat and was not present
    when the posts and firewood were seized, he could never be held liable for illegal possession of timber as he was
    never in possession of the round posts.

    Amidst the proceedings in this criminal case docketed as Criminal Case No, 551 and before the Surigao City RTC
    Branch 32 rendered its judgment, RA 7691. This expanded the exclusive original jurisdiction of MTCs and MCTCs
    in criminal cases to cover all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six years irrespective of the
    amount fine. This is the reason why on June 13, 2002, the Court of Appeals granted the appeal of private
    respondents and dismissing the case before it on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of RTC despite the fact that the
    issue of jurisdiction was never raised by the private respondents.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the criminal case against private respondents despite the effectivity of
    RA 7691.

    Ruling:

    The petition was granted. The assailed CA decision was revised and set aside. The CA was directed to resolve the
    appeal of private respondents on the merits and with dispatch. It has been held as a general rule that the jurisdiction
    of a court to try a criminal case is to be determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action.
    Where a court has already obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdiction to proceed to the
    final determination of the cause is not affected by new legislation placing jurisdiction over such proceedings in
    another tribunal. Jurisdiction attached upon the commencement of the action could not be ousted by the passage of
    R.A. 7691 reapportioning the jurisdiction of inferior courts, the application of which to criminal cases is, to stress,
    prospective in nature. Thus, where private respondents had been charges with illegal logging punishable under
    Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code, the RTC clearly has jurisdiction at the inception of the criminal
    case.

    You might also like