Case Name: Austria v. People G.R. No.

83530 Date: December 18, 1990 Ponente: Justice Sarmiento Petitioner: Cristito Austria Respondent: People of the Philippines Crime charged: Murder Convicted: Homicide Place: Alfonso, Cavite Lower court decision: Guilty Court of Appeals decision: Guilty Supreme Court decision: petition is GRANTED petitioner ACQUITTED. Facts: Petitioner Austria was charged of murder before the Circuit Criminal Court (CCC) of the 7 th Judicial District for shooting Roberto Miranda inside the San Miguel Magnolia Poultry farm compound in Alfonso, Cavite. The accused denied having shot the deceased and claimed that they were grappling for the possession of shotgun that is why it was accidentally fired. The case was filed by the Provincial Fiscal of Cavite in the defunct of the Circuit Criminal Court sitting in Pasig, presided by Judge Pena. However due to the death of said judge and the reorganization of the courts (Aug. 14, 1981) creating the RTC and abolishing the CCC, the same was referred to Pasig presided by Judge Migrino and subsequently upon the appointment of Judge Caguioa to her sala. Petitioner assails jurisdiction of Caguioa court that upon the abolition of the CCC, the case should have been assumed by RTC Cavite which was the venue of the crime Issue: 1.Whether or not the case should have been referred to the RTC Cavite upon the phasing out of CCCs 2. Whether or not the RTC Pasig had jurisdiction to try and entertain the same. Ruling: 1. YES. The case should have been coursed to the RTC Cavite, the alleged crime having been committed in Alfonso, Cavite. HOWEVER, COURT FINDS CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARGUE AGAINST THE SETTING ASIDE OF THE RTC PASIG PROCEEDINGS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. 2. YES. The case has been pending for the last 9years and the Court finds that the ends of speedy trial will be subserved better if the proceedings before Judge Caguioa were left alone Records show that the petitioner had pursued vigorously the case before the lower court on the supposition that it had jurisdiction and had asked it to render a judgment of acquittal. It is abehavior that forces him to accept the jurisdiction of the Pasig court; because if the latter lacked jurisdiction, it cannot act, much less render a decision, whether of a conviction or acquittal. Surely he CANNOT RIGHTFULLY MAINTAIN AN ATTACK ON THE TRIAL COURTS COMPETENCE AFTER HAVING ACCEPTED AND INVOKED IT. ESTOPPEL IS AN IMPEDIMENT AGAINST ANY ATTACK. There was no sufficient evidence essential for conviction shown by the prosecution that is why the accused was ACQUITTED.