Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 43 views

    Persons - (People v. Purisima)

    Uploaded by

    KristabelleCapa
    1) Josefa Pesimo was charged with making false statements on her son's birth certificate by the Manila City Fiscal. 2) The Court of First Instance dismissed the case, claiming the offense did not fall under its jurisdiction since the penalty was only up to 6 months imprisonment. 3) However, the Supreme Court ruled the fine of PHP 200 to PHP 500 for the offense gives the Court of First Instance concurrent jurisdiction with lower courts. Since it was the first court to acquire jurisdiction, it must proceed with the trial.

    Copyright:

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

    Persons - (People v. Purisima)

    Uploaded by

    KristabelleCapa
    43 views1 page
    1) Josefa Pesimo was charged with making false statements on her son's birth certificate by the Manila City Fiscal. 2) The Court of First Instance dismissed the case, claiming the offense did not fall under its jurisdiction since the penalty was only up to 6 months imprisonment. 3) However, the Supreme Court ruled the fine of PHP 200 to PHP 500 for the offense gives the Court of First Instance concurrent jurisdiction with lower courts. Since it was the first court to acquire jurisdiction, it must proceed with the trial.

    Original Title

    14. Persons - (People v. Purisima).docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Josefa Pesimo was charged with making false statements on her son's birth certificate by the Manila City Fiscal. 2) The Court of First Instance dismissed the case, claiming the offense did not fall under its jurisdiction since the penalty was only up to 6 months imprisonment. 3) However, the Supreme Court ruled the fine of PHP 200 to PHP 500 for the offense gives the Court of First Instance concurrent jurisdiction with lower courts. Since it was the first court to acquire jurisdiction, it must proceed with the trial.

    Copyright:

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

    Persons - (People v. Purisima)

    Uploaded by

    KristabelleCapa
    1) Josefa Pesimo was charged with making false statements on her son's birth certificate by the Manila City Fiscal. 2) The Court of First Instance dismissed the case, claiming the offense did not fall under its jurisdiction since the penalty was only up to 6 months imprisonment. 3) However, the Supreme Court ruled the fine of PHP 200 to PHP 500 for the offense gives the Court of First Instance concurrent jurisdiction with lower courts. Since it was the first court to acquire jurisdiction, it must proceed with the trial.

    Copyright:

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

    Persons Cases

    GR No. L - People vs. Purisima (1976)


    40902
    Objective People of the Philippines, petitioner, filed a petition for review on certiorari on
    the judgement of the criminal indictment case of Josefa Pesimo, to
    respondents, Honorable Judge Amante P. Purisima of the Court of First
    Instance, et al.,
    Facts 1. The City Fiscal of Manila charged private respondent Josefa Pesimo
    of a criminal indictment in violation of Section 16, Act 3753, otherwise
    known as the “Civil Register Law” where penalty provided for by law
    is imprisonment of not less than one (1) month nor more than six (6)
    months or a fine of not less than Php 200.00 nor more than Php
    500.00, or both, in the discretion of the court.
    2. Josefa Pesimo wilfully, feloniously, and knowingly make false
    statements in the Birth Certificate of her son, Carlos Pesimo
    Cucueco, Jr., making it appear that her said son is her legitimate
    child with one Carlos Layug Cucueco and that said accused was
    married to him.
    3. On May 26, 1975, respondent court (City of First Instance) dismissed
    the case ex mere motu for the reason that the offense complained of
    does not come within the perimeter of its jurisdiction which only starts
    from offenses where the penalty of imprisonment, in particular,
    exceeds six (6) months or more than Php 200.00 fine. Therefore,
    jurisdiction belongs to the City Court of Manila.
    4. The respondent court erred in disclaiming jurisdiction over the case
    for the expedient reason that the penalty of imprisonment prescribed
    by law for the offense charged reaches only the maximum of six (6)
    months. It must be observed that imprisonment is not the sole
    penalty for the crime charged. There is also the alternative penalty of
    fine not less than Php 200.00 nor more than Php 500.00.
    Issue(s) Whether or not the case of Josefa Pesimo is under the jurisdiction of the
    Court of First Instance.
    Ruling Accordingly, the orders subject of this petition are hereby reversed and set
    aside, and the case ordered remanded to the court a quo with instructions to
    proceed with tile trial on the merits, after arraignment of the accused.
    Rationale The fine ranging from Php 200.00 to Php 500.00, for the violation charged
    enters the realm of jurisdiction of the respondent Court of First Instance.
    Nonetheless, the jurisdiction is concurrent with the municipal and city courts.
    It is an axiom in procedural law that where several courts have concurrent
    jurisdiction over the same offense, the court which first acquires jurisdiction
    of the prosecution retains it to the exclusion of the others.

    You might also like