G.R. No.

L-51773 May 16, 1980 case, three (3) bottles of explosives,

two (2) paddles, two (2) fishnets
LT. COL. RODRIGO S. DE locally known as "SIBOT" and one (1)
GUZMAN and PEOPLE OF THE banca were recovered from their
PHILIPPINES, petitioners, possession and control, which acts of
vs. the above-named accused is a gross
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT JUDGE violation of PD No. 1058.
MARCELINO M. ESCALONA,
1
FLORENTINO RODRIGO, and All contrary to law. (Emphasis
MARIANO DAYDAY, respondents. supplied)

 MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:ñé+. The Complaint was precipitated by

£ªwph!1 the fact, as disclosed by the Sworn
Statements of CIC Carlos Dosdos
In this original Petition for Certiorari, and Sgt. Jose Andales 2 that when
which was given due course in our they conducted a seaborne patrol
Resolution of February 6, 1980, the along Daanbantayan Cebu, in the
sole question to be resolved is morning of July 20, 1979, they
whether or not respondent Municipal spotted the accused Florentino
Circuit Court Judge, in Criminal Case Rodrigo and Mariano Dayday aboard
No. 2450-D, had jurisdiction to try the a banca. As they approached the
offense charged and render judgment banca Rodrigo attempted to light a
although the criminal Complaint bottle of dynamite but which the
which was filed before him was only succeeded ill slopping. Both accused
for preliminary investigation. were arrested and three bottles of
dynamite and two fishnets were
The Complaint charged the accused confiscated from them.
Florentino Rodrigo and Mariano
Dayday with "Illegal Possession of Instead of conducting a preliminary
Explosive locally known as 'dinamita' investigation, respondent Judge motu
(P.D. No. 1058)" before the Third proprio treated the Complaint as one
Municipal Circuit Court at for Violation of Act 3023 3 and,
Daanbantayan Medellin, Cebu (Crim. therefore, within its jurisdiction, since
Case No. 2450-D), and reads as the offense charged did not warrant
follows: têñ.£îhqw⣠prosecution under Presidential
Decree No. 9 relating to crimes
That on the 20th day of July, 1979 at against national security. He then
around 9:00 o'clock in the morning, proceeded to arraign the accused
more or less, at Sitio Suba, Bgy. both of whom pleaded guilty, and
Maya, Municipality of Daanbantayan, rendered judgment on August 6,
Province of Cebu, Philippines, and 1979, quoted in full hereunder: têñ.
within the Preliminary Jurisdiction of £îhqwâ£
this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused while in the DECISION
seawaters of the above-mentioned
place, confederating and mutually This case was originally filed in
helping with one another, without violation of Section 2 of PD No. 9, but
authority of the law and without is prosecuted under Act 3023 upon
proper permit from authorities, did suggestion of the Court, for under the
then and there willfully, unlawfully, facts and circumstances of this case
and feloniously possess, keep an the interests of justice require that
explosive, locally known as this offense be prosecuted under Act
'DINAMITA' in their banca purposely 3023 inasmuch as the possession is
for use of illegal fishing in which not in connection with subversion or
insurrection and that the quantity and respondent Judge's Decision has no
quality of the homemade explosive legal basis.
do not come to the level of
destructiveness contemplated under For his part, respondent Judge
PD No. 9. submits that only possession of
explosives in connection with
Upon arraignment, both accused subversion is covered by Presidential
entered a plea of guilty. in view Decree No. 9, thus, the old law on
thereof, the Court hereby renders a illegal possession of explosives, Act
decision finding and declaring above 3023, has not been completely
two accused GUILTY beyond repealed; that having found that the
reasonable doubt of the offense of possession by the two accused of
Illegal Possession of Explosive at the two bottles of home-made explosives
time and place stated in the was solely for fishing purposes and
complaint, in violation of Act 3023, had no connection with subversion,
and they are thereby sentenced to the illegal act should fall not under
suffer a penalty consisting of Presidential Decree No. 9 but under
imprisonment for four (4) months and Act 3023; that having arrived at said
fine of P 1,000.00 each, in conclusion there was nothing
accordance with the penal provisions irregular in his assuming original
of said Act, and to pay the costs. jurisdiction and not merely
conducting the second stage of the
Apprehended explosives contained in preliminary investigation, for under
two (2) beer bottles are confiscated Section 87 (c) of the Judiciary Act the
and ordered turned over to the 342nd Municipal Court has jurisdiction over
PC Company, Bogo, Cebu, for proper illegal possession of explosives.
disposal. Respondent Judge further justifies
his course of action as being in the
SO ORDERED. 4 interest of the speedy and
inexpensive administration of justice.
Both the accused have served their
sentence. The accused, Florentino Rodrigo and
Mariano Dayday, whom we ordered
Contesting the course of action taken impleaded as party respondents, filed
and the judgment rendered by their Comment on the Petition,
respondent Judge, herein petitioner stating that they freely and voluntarily
Lt. Col. Rodrigo S. De Guzman, PC entered a plea of guilty with the able
Provincial Commander Integrated assistance of counsel; that before
National Police Superintendent at handing down the Decision,
Camp Sotero Cabahug, Cebu City, respondent Judge made them
instituted these certiorari proceedings understand the nature and gravity of
alleging mainly that the offense their crime; that even the state
charged was one for possession of prosecutors showed their conformity
explosives intended for illegal fishing and appreciation for the wisdom and
under Presidential Decree No. 704, practicality of the judgment of
as amended by Presidential Decree respondent Judge; and that they
No. 1058, and not for violation of Act appreciated the sentence imposed on
3023 which had long been repealed them because they did not
by several laws and decrees; that the contemplate to commit so grave an
penalty provided for by current offense, the two bottles of
legislation is one which falls within confiscated explosives being
the exclusive original jurisdiction of adulterated and not of genuine
the Court of First Instance; and that quality, and considering that they are
illiterates and ignorant of the defined shall be punishable as
destructive use of these explosives. hereinafter provided. ... (Emphasis
supplied).
Significantly, the Solicitor General
representing the People of the Section 38, subsection a (1) of
Philippines and whom we likewise Presidential Decree No. 704, as
ordered impleaded as party amended by Presidential Decree No.
petitioner, has joined petitioner De 1058, correspondingly provides têñ.
Guzman in assailing the validity of £îhqwâ£
the action taken by respondent Judge
in the criminal case before him. (1) By the penalty of imprisonment
ranging from twelve (12) years to
We find this Petition, indeed, twenty-five (25) years in the case of
impressed with merit and that mere possession of explosives
respondent Judge exceeded his intended for illegal fishing. ...
jurisdiction when he rendered the (Emphasis supplied).
questioned Decision of August 6,
1979. As correctly pointed out by the
Solicitor General in the Comment he
The complaint filed against the two filed for petitioner People of the
accused specifically alleged that they Philippines, respondent Judge's
wilfully and unlawfully possessed in reference to Presidential Decree No.
their banca explosives locally known 9 is misplaced for, indeed, there is no
as "dinamita" purposely intended for mention at all of, nor any reference
use in illegal fishing in violation of to, Presidential Decree No. 9 in the
Presidential Decree No. 1058. Complaint.

Presidential Decree No. 1058 is an Jurisdiction over cases involving

amendatory decree, which increased illegal possession of explosives
the penalties for certain forms of intended for illegal fishing and certain
illegal fishing and for other acts made other acts prohibited under
punishable under Presidential Decree Presidential Decree No. 704, which
No. 704 or the "Fisheries Decree of was vested by Section 5 of
1975". The pertinent portion of Presidential Decree No. 1058 upon
Section 33 of Presidential Decree No. Military Tribunals created under
704, as amended by Presidential Presidential Decree No. 39, as
Decree No. 1058 reads: têñ.£îhqw⣠amended, 5 is now within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of
Sec. 33. Illegal fishing; illegal Courts of First Instance by virtue of
possession of explosives intended for Letter of Instructions No. 772 dated
illegal fishing; dealing in illegally November 27, 1978, issued by the
caught fish or fishery/aquatic President of the Philippines, 6 and the
products. - It shall be unlawful for any Rules and Regulations implementing
person to catch, take or gather or LOI No. 772 promulgated in the Joint
cause to be caught, taken gathered Circular, dated April 1, 1979, issued
fish or fisheries/aquatic products in by the Minister of National Defense 7,
Philippine waters with the use of in relation to the Judiciary Act of 1948
explosives, obnoxious or poisonous as amended, in view of the penalty
substance, or by the use of electricity involved.
as defined in paragraphs (1), (m) and
(d), respectively, of Section 3 hereof: Since the purpose of preliminary
Provided, that possession of such investigation proper is to determine
explosives with intent to use the whether or not the accused should be
same for illegal fishing as herein released or held for trial before the
 8
competent Court the only Solicitor General that no jeopardy
jurisdiction of a Municipal Judge at may be deemed to have attached by
the preliminary investigation proper, virtue of the erroneous and void
where the offense charged does not judgment of conviction rendered by
fall within the jurisdiction of the respondent Judge as to bar a
Municipal Court, is either to elevate subsequent indictment and trial of the
the case to the proper Court with his case in the proper Court with
findings on preliminary investigation jurisdiction over the offense. 11
or, in the absence of probable cause
to believe an accused guilty, to WHEREFORE, we hereby set aside
dismiss the case. He cannot decide the Decision of August 6, 1979
the case on the merits and if he does, rendered by respondent Judge
he acts without jurisdiction. 9 The Marcelino M. Escalona of the
duty of a Municipal Judge conducting Municipal Circuit Court of Medellin,
the preliminary investigation when Cebu, and remand this case to him
the offense charged does not fall for preliminary investigation in
within his Court's jurisdiction is only accordance with law and the Rules.
to determine whether or not the
evidence presented support prima Without costs.
facie the allegations of fact contained
in the complaint, but he has no legal SO ORDERED.
authority to determine the character
of the crime and his declaration upon
that point can only be regarded as an
expression of opinion in no wise
binding on the trial Court. 10

Therefore, it was erroneous for

respondent Judge at the preliminary
investigation of the criminal complaint
filed before him for the specific
offense of illegal possession of
explosives intended for illegal fishing
under Presidential Decree No. 704,
as amended by Presidential Decree
No. 1058, to have rendered judgment
and to have convicted the accused
for illegal possession of explosives
under Act No. 3023 considering that
his Court had no jurisdiction over the
offense charged in the Complaint,
and, hence, was bereft of authority to
determine the character of the crime
committed. His only jurisdiction was
to elevate or dismiss the case. He
could not decide the case on the
merits.

Considering that the Municipal Circuit

Court lacked competent jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the criminal
complaint against the accused
respondents, we agree with the