FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 117363. December 17, 1999.]

MILA G. PANGILINAN , petitioner, v s . HON. COURT OF APPEALS and

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , respondents.

S.B. Britanico & D.G. Manikan Law Offices for petitioner.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

SYNOPSIS

Appellant was charged under information using the generic term "Estafa" without
citing the speci c article of the Revised Penal Code (R.P.C.) violated. The RTC assumed
jurisdiction over the case, presuming that petitioner was charged with Estafa under Article
315 of the RPC (with abuse of con dence). After conviction, appellant led a petition for
new trial with the Court of Appeals, but was denied. HASDcC

On appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the CA as the RTC, whose
decision was a rmed, had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. Not all the
elements of Estafa under Article 315 (b) were contained in the information under which
appellant was charged. Appellant was charged under an information alleging an offense
falling under the blanket provision of par. 1(a) of Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code,
which treat of "Other Deceits." Under the express provision of Section 32 of B.P. 129, the
offense of which the petitioner was charged with falls within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the MTC.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; JURISDICTION; OFFENSES FALLING UNDER "OTHER

DECEITS," FALL WITHIN EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURT. — A circumspect examination of the allegations in the information will disclose
that the information under which the appellant is charged with does not contain all the
elements of estafa falling under Article 315 (b). There was a failure to allege that demand
was made upon the appellant by the offended party. Thus, appellant was charged under
the blanket provision of paragraph 1(a) of Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code, which
treat "Other Deceits," punishable then by imprisonment for a period ranging from one (1)
month and one (1) day to six (6) months. At the time of the ling of the information in this
case, the law in force was Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. Under the express provision of
Section 32 of B.P. 129, the offense of which the petitioner was charged with falls within
the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court.
2. ID.; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; AVERMENTS IN INFORMATION CHARACTERIZE
CRIME. — Settled is the rule that it is the averments in the information which characterize
the crime to be prosecuted and the court before which it must be tried. CIAHDT

3. ID.; ID.; ISSUE OF JURISDICTION MAY BE RAISED AT ANY STAGE OF

PROCEEDINGS. — In our legal system, the question of jurisdiction may be raised at any
stage of the proceedings.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 4. ID.; ID.; ESTOPPEL; DOCTRINE LAID DOWN IN TIJAM VS. SIBONGHANOY (23
SCRA 29), AN EXCEPTION TO AND NOT THE GENERAL RULE. — The doctrine laid down in
the Tijam case is an exception to and not the general rule. Estoppel attached to the party
assailing the jurisdiction of the court as it was the same party who sought recourse in the
said forum. In the case at bar, appellant cannot in anyway be said to have invoked the
jurisdiction of the trial court.
5. ID.; JURISDICTION; VESTED BY LAW AND CANNOT BE CONFERRED OR
WAIVED BY PARTIES; PARTIES NOT BARRED ON APPEAL FROM ASSAILING LACK OF
JURISDICTION. — Jurisdiction is vested by law and cannot be conferred or waived by the
parties. Even on appeal and even if the reviewing parties did not raise the issue of
jurisdiction, the reviewing court is not precluded from ruling that the lower court had no
jurisdiction over the case: The operation of the principle of estoppel on the question of
jurisdiction seemingly depends upon whether the lower court had jurisdiction or not. If it
had no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and decided upon the theory it had jurisdiction,
the parties are not barred, on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for the same "must
exist as a matter of law, and may not be conferred by consent of the parties or by
estoppel."
6. ID.; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; JUDGMENT IN CASE VARIANCE BETWEEN
ALLEGATION AND PROOF; COURT MUST HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE. — This
argument is specious. Section 4, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court applies exclusively to
cases where the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense
proved. It presupposes that the court rendering judgment has jurisdiction over the case
based on the allegations in the information. However, in the case at bar, from the onset of
the criminal proceedings, the lower court had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the case.
DIAcTE

DECISION

KAPUNAN , J : p

Is the conviction of the accused-appellant by the Regional Trial Court under an

information falling within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court valid?
On 20 September 1990, appellant Mila G. Pangilinan was charged with the crime of
Estafa in an information 1 which reads: dctai

The undersigned Asst. Prov'l. Prosecutor accuses Mrs. Mila Pangilinan of

the Crime of Estafa, committed as follows:

That on or about the 15th day of June, 1984 in the municipality of Tanay,
Rizal Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-
named accused, by means of false pretenses and misrepresentation introduced
and misrepresented herself that she was instructed by Mr. Rodolfo Elnar, father of
Miss Luzviminda SJ Elnar, a girl 15 years of age, to get one (1) stereo component,
marked Fisher PH 430K valued at more or less P17,000.00, one (1) headphone,
one (1) electrical jack and two (2) record tapes worth P450.00, or with total
amount of P17,450.00 from their house and falsely alleging that said father of
the minor further instructed her that the stereo component be tested in a turntable
somewhere in EDSA, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously and taking advantage of the inexperience and feelings
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 of the said minor, induce the said minor Luzviminda SJ Elnar to give her said
stereo component and electrical parts belonging to spouses Rolando Elnar and
Soledad SJ Elnar when in truth and in fact said accused was not authorized by
Mr. Rolando Elnar to have said stereo components be tested and once said
accused had in her possession the said articles, she took them away to the
damage and prejudice of such Mr. and Mrs. Rolando Elnar in the aforesaid
amount of P17,450.00.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

On 12 March 1991, appellant was arraigned before the Regional Trial Court of
Morong, Rizal, where she entered a plea of "not guilty". After due trial, said court in a
Decision dated 7 October 1991 2 convicted the appellant of the crime of ESTAFA under
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.
This unfavorable verdict was appealed to the Court of Appeals which, on 13 August
1993, affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence, to wit:
. . . and that there being no proof of mitigating and or aggravating
circumstances which attended the commission of the offense, the appellant
should suffer the penalty of four (4) months of arresto mayor and a ne of
P17,450.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. 3

A Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the respondent court on 11 November

1993. 4 On 3 December 1993, appellant led a Petition for New Trial in the Court of
Appeals 5 which was denied by said Court on 10 January 1994. 6 Hence, the present
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court premised on the
following grounds:
I
THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT CONVICTING HEREIN ACCUSED IS
NULL AND VOID FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE CRIME CHARGED.
BEING NULL AND VOID, THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ON APPEAL
HEREIN CANNOT VALIDATE IT;
II

IN THE ALTERNATIVE, ASSUMING WITHOUT ADMITTING THAT THE TRIAL

COURT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE, THE GUILT OF THE PETITIONER
HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 7

The Court has carefully reviewed the records of this case and nds the appeal to be
impressed with merit.
The information uses the generic term Estafa as the classi cation of the crime
appellant is charged with without citing the speci c article of the Revised Penal Code
violated.
The trial court, however, presumed that the petitioner was charged with the crime of
estafa falling under Article 315 of the RPC. This is evidenced by the trial court's
assumption of jurisdiction over the case and its subsequent conviction of the appellant for
this form of estafa, 8 to wit:
WHEREFORE, the court nds the accused MILA PANGILINAN, GUILTY of
the Crime of Estafa, in violation of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 amended and hereby sentences her to suffer imprisonment of One (1) year, Eight
(8) months and Twenty (20) days of Prision Correccional, as minimum to Five (5)
years, Five (5) months and Eleven (11) days of Prision Correccional as maximum,
plus costs.

Further to pay the complainant Soledad Elnar the amount of P17,000.00 the value of the
unrecovered one stereo component.

SO ORDERED. LLjur

In order to nd estafa with abuse of con dence under subdivision No. 1, par. (b) of
Art. 315, the following elements must be present:
1. That money, goods, or other personal property be received by the
offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other
obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return the same;
2. That there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or
property by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt;
3. That such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the
prejudice of another; and
4. That there is a demand made by the offended party to the offender.
9

A circumspect examination of the allegations in the information will disclose that

the information under which the appellant is charged with does not contain all the
elements of estafa falling under Article 315 (b). There was a failure to allege that demand
was made upon the appellant by the offended party.
Thus, as correctly observed by the Court of Appeals in the questioned decision, to
which the Solicitor General agrees, appellant was charged under an information alleging an
offense falling under the blanket provision of paragraph 1(a) of Article 318 of the Revised
Penal Code, which treat "Other Deceits." 1 0
As prescribed by law, a violation of Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code is
punishable by imprisonment for a period ranging from one (1) month and one (1) day to
six (6) months. At the time of the ling of the information in this case, the law in force was
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. Under the express provision of Section 32 of B.P. 129, the
offense of which the petitioner was charged with falls within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court:
SECTION 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in criminal cases.

xxx xxx xxx

(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment of
not exceeding four years and two months, or a ne of not more than four thousand pesos, or
both such ne and imprisonment regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties,
including the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind,
nature, value, or amount thereof: Provided, however, That in offenses involving damage to
property through criminal negligence they shall have exclusive jurisdiction where the imposable
fine does not exceed twenty thousand pesos.

Settled is the rule that it is the averments in the information which characterize the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 crime to be prosecuted and the court before which it must be tried. 1 1 Without a doubt, it
was the Municipal Trial Court who had jurisdiction over the case and not the Regional Trial
Court.
However, the O ce of the Solicitor General contends that the appellant is barred
from raising the issue of jurisdiction, estoppel having already set in.
This contention is without merit. In our legal system, the question of jurisdiction may
be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The O ce of the Solicitor General relies on this
Court's ruling in the landmark case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy 1 2 where the Court stated
that:
It has been held that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to
secure a rmative relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to
obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction. In the case just
cited, by way of explaining the rule, it was further said that the question whether
the court had jurisdiction either of the subject-matter of the action or of the parties
was not important in such cases because the party is barred from such conduct
not because the judgment or order of the court is valid and conclusive as an
adjudication, but for the reason that such a practice can not be tolerated —
obviously for reasons of public policy.

The O ce of the Solicitor General's reliance on the said ruling is misplaced. The
doctrine laid down in the Tijam case is an exception to and not the general rule. Estoppel
attached to the party assailing the jurisdiction of the court as it was the same party who
sought recourse in the said forum. In the case at bar, appellant cannot in anyway be said to
have invoked the jurisdiction of the trial court.
Thus, we apply the general rule that jurisdiction is vested by law and cannot be
conferred or waived by the parties. Even on appeal and even if the reviewing parties did not
raise the issue of jurisdiction, the reviewing court is not precluded from ruling that the
lower court had no jurisdiction over the case:
The operation of the principle of estoppel on the question of jurisdiction
seemingly depends upon whether the lower court had jurisdiction or not. If it had
no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and decided upon the theory it had
jurisdiction, the parties are not barred, on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction,
for the same "must exist as a matter of law, and may not be conferred by consent
of the parties or by estoppel." 13

Estoppel in questioning the jurisdiction of the court is only brought to bear when not
to do so will subvert the ends of justice. Jurisdiction of courts is the blueprint of our
judicial system without which the road to justice would be a confusing maze. Whenever the
question of jurisdiction is put to front, courts should not lightly brush aside errors in
jurisdiction especially when it is the liberty of an individual which is at stake: LLphil

"Where life or liberty is affected by its proceedings, the court must keep
strictly within the limits of the law authorizing it to take jurisdiction and to try the
case and to render judgment. It cannot pass beyond those limits in any essential
requirement in either stage of these proceedings; and its authority in those
particulars is not to be enlarged by any mere inferences from the law or doubtful
construction of its terms. There has been a great deal said and written, in may
cases with embarrassing looseness of expression, as to the jurisdiction of the
courts in criminal cases. From a somewhat extended examination of the
authorities we will venture to state some rule applicable to all of them, by which
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 the jurisdiction as to any particular judgment of the courts in such cases may be
determined. It is plain that such court has jurisdiction to render a particular
judgment only when the offense charged is within the class of offenses placed by
the law under its jurisdiction; and when, in taking custody of the accused, and its
modes of procedure to the determination of the question of his guilt or innocence,
and in rendering judgment, the court keeps within the limitations prescribed by the
law, customary or statutory. When the court goes out of these limitations its
action, to the extent of such excess, is void." 1 4

The O ce of the Solicitor General makes a nal attempt to bolster its position by
citing Section 4, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court which provides:
SECTION 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and
proof. When there is a variance between the offense charged in complaint or
information, and that proved or established by the evidence, and the offense as
charge is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall
be convicted of the offense proved included in that which is charged or of the
offense charge included in that which is proved.

According to the OSG, since the offense proved (Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code) is
necessarily included in the offense charged, then the decision of the respondent court
modifying the court of origin's judgment is perfectly valid and the petitioner's claim that
the trial court had no jurisdiction must necessarily fail. 1 5
This argument is specious. Aforementioned section applies exclusively to cases
where the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved. It
presupposes that the court rendering judgment has jurisdiction over the case based on the
allegations in the information. However, in the case at bar, from the onset of the criminal
proceedings, the lower court had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the case.
Having arrived at the conclusion that the Regional Trial Court did not have
jurisdiction to try the case against the appellant, it is no longer necessary to consider the
other issues raised as the decision of the Regional Trial Court is null and void.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The challenged decision of
respondent Court of Appeals in CA-GR CR No. 12320 is set aside as the Regional Trial
Court, whose decision was a rmed therein, had no jurisdiction over the Criminal Case No.
0867-M.
SO ORDERED. cdtai

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Pardo and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Rollo, p. 67.
2. Records, p. 24.
3. Rollo, p. 87.
4. Id., at 124.
5. Id., at 126.
6. Id., at 134.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 7. Id., at 25.
8. Id., at 67.
9. Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Book II, 1993.
10. Rollo, pp. 86; 173-174.
11. People v. Polo, 169 SCRA 471 (1989).
12. 23 SCRA 29 (1968).

13. People vs. Casiano, 111 Phil. 73 (1961), citing 5 CJS, 861-863.
14. People v. Pegarum, 58 Phil. 715 (1933).
15. Rollo, p. 234.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com