People vs.

Mariano
G.R. No. L-40527, 71 SCRA 600, June 30, 1976

FACTS: Respondent Mariano was charged with Estafa before the CFI of Bulacan because of misappropriating and converting for his own personal
use, power cord and electric cables being the person in authority to receive the same in behalf of mayor Nolasco of SJDM, Bulacan. Respondent
Mariano then moved to quash the information for, inter alia, lack of jurisdiction. He claimed that the items were the same items used against mayor
Nolasco before the Military commission for Malversation of public property to which mayor Nolasco were found guilty, hence, the court a quo has no
jurisdiction.
The judge granted the motion. Hence this petition.

ISSUE: Whether the court has jurisdiction over the Estafa case against Mariano.

RULING: YES. The CFI has jurisdiction “In all criminal cases in which the penalty provided by law is imprisonment for more than six months, or a fine
of more than two hundred pesos” Section 44, paragraph E, Judiciary reorganization act of 1948. The offense of estafa charged against respondent
Mariano is penalized with arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, or imprisonment from four (4) months
and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months. By reason of the penalty imposed which exceeds six (6) months imprisonment, the offense
alleged to have been committed by the accused, now respondent, Mariano, falls under the original jurisdiction of courts of first instance.
Respondent court therefore gravely erred when it ruled that it lost jurisdiction over the estafa case against respondent Mariano with the filing of the
malversation charge against Mayor Nolasco before the Military Commission. Estafa and malversation are two separate and distinct offenses and in
the case now before Us the accused in one is different from the accused in the other.
“Criminal Jurisdiction" is necessarily the authority to hear and try a particular offense and impose the punishment for it.