JURISDICTIONAL EFFECT OF RA NO.

10951
Hon. Marlo Campanilla

The Revised Penal Code fixed the value of the property malversed or stolen, or
the amount of fraud, on which the penalties for malversation, robbery by using
force upon thing, theft and estafa based, taking into consideration the minimum
wage rate on January 1, 1932, the date of the effectivity of the Code. One of the
amendatory effects of RA No. 10951 to the Code is to adjust such value of the
property or amount of fraud on the basis of the minimum wage rate prevailing in
2017 when this law was enacted. As a consequence, the penalties for these crimes
were drastically reduced. For example, under the original version of Article 309
of the Revised Penal Code, penalty for theft the value of which exceeds P12,000 is
prision mayor its minimum and medium periods. However, RA No. 10951
has adjusted such amount from P12,000 to P1.2 million.
Because of the reduction of the penalties for certain crimes, the jurisdiction of the
courts is modified. Certain crimes, which were previously within the jurisdiction
of the Regional Trial Court, are now jurisdictionally cognizable by the inferior
court.
Under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA No. 1060, if the
amount involved in the malversation exceeds P200, the case is cognizable with
the Regional Trial Court; if the amount does not exceed P200, the case belongs to
the inferior court. RA No. 10951 has amended this provision by increasing this
amount from P200 to P40,000. However, this rule is subject to the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan over crimes committed by public officer with the salary grade
of 27 and other public officers specified in RA No. 10660.
Under the original version of Articles 308 and 315 of the Revised Penal Code, the
line that separates the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court and inferior court
for theft and estafa is P12,000. Under RA No. 10951, that line was increased to
P1.2 million for theft and to 2.4 million for estafa. As a consequence, RA No.
10951 has substantially expanded the jurisdiction of inferior courts over the
crimes of theft and estafa. The Regional Trial Court will only have jurisdiction for
theft where the value of the property exceeds P1.2 million and estafa where the
amount of fraud exceeds P2.4 million.
However, Regional Trial Court despite the passage of RA No. 10951 retains
jurisdiction over qualified theft unless the value of the property stolen is less than
P500 and estafa through issuance of bouncing check.
Under the original version of Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code, the inferior
court had jurisdiction over robbery in inhabited house, public building or edifice
devoted to religious worship if the amount of the property stolen is less than
P2.50 and the offender is not armed. However, RA No. 10951 has increased the
amount to P50,000. But despite the passage of RA No. 10952, the inferior court
retains its jurisdiction over robbery in uninhabited house or private building
under Article 302 of the Code.
The amendatory effects of RA No. 10951 are either favorable to the accused (e.g.
reduction of penalties for theft) or prejudicial to the accused (e.g. increasing the
amount of fine for unjust vexation or alarm and scandal). If a provision of RA No.
10951 is favorable to the accused, it shall be given a retroactive effect. Section 100
of RA No. 10951 provides: “This Act shall have retroactive effect to the
extent that it is favorable to the accused or person serving sentence
by final judgment.” If a provision of RA No. 10951 is prejudicial to the accused,
it shall be given a prospective effect. Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code
provides: “No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed
by law prior to its commission.”
However, the expansion of the jurisdiction of the inferior court as an incidental
effect of the reduction of penalties for certain crimes under RA No. 10951 is
neither favorable nor prejudicial to the accused since their rights under the
Constitution and law shall be accorded regardless of whether the cases involving
such crimes are within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court or inferior
court. Since the jurisdictional modification is neither favorable nor prejudicial to
the accused, the rules on retroactivity under Section 100 of RA No. 10951 and on
prospectivity under Article 21 of the Revised Penal Code are not applicable.
The rule on imposition of penalty should not be confused with the rule on
determination of jurisdiction. If what is involved is imposition of penalty, the
provision of RA No. 10951 shall be given a retroactive effect if it is favorable to the
accused; or prospective effect if it is prejudicial. If what is involved is the
determination of jurisdiction, the applicable rules are Section 101 of RA No.
10951 and jurisprudential rule on time of institution of criminal action.
Section 101 of RA No. 10951 provides: “For cases pending before the courts
upon the effectivity of this Act where trial has already started, the
courts hearing such cases shall not lose jurisdiction over the same by
virtue of this Act.” Under OCA Circular No. 19-2018 dated January 31, 2018,
the term “trial” in Section 101 of RA No. 951 which in part states, “where trial
has already started, the Courts having such cases shall not lose
jurisdiction over the same” is deemed to include arraignment.
Thus, where the accused has already been arraigned as of September 16, 2017
(date of effectivity of RA No. 10951), the Regional Trial Court shall not lose
jurisdiction even though the penalty for the crime charged under Revised Penal
Code as amended by RA No. 10951 is now not more than 6 years of
imprisonment. On the other hand, where the accused has not been arraigned as
of September 16, 2017, the Regional Trial Court shall lose jurisdiction if the
penalty for the crime charged under the Code as amended by RA no. 10951 is
reduced to not more than 6 years of imprisonment.
However, if the crime was committed prior to September 16, 2017 but the
information was filed after such date, Section 101 of RA No. 10951 is not
applicable since the case is not yet pending upon the effectivity of this law. Hence,
the jurisprudential rule that that the jurisdiction of the court to hear and decide a
case is conferred by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action
(People vs. Benipayo, G.R. No. 154473, April 24, 2009) applies. In sum, if the
penalty for the crime charged under RA No. 10951 is not more than 6 years of
imprisonment at the time of the institution of criminal action, the inferior court
shall have jurisdiction over the same.