Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 440 views

    408 People V Ocaya

    Uploaded by

    KL
    The respondent judge dismissed a case charging serious physical injuries based solely on his review of medical records stating the injuries would require 7-10 days of treatment. However, a court's jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information, not by evidence or the judge's personal assessment without a proper trial. It is a grave abuse of discretion for a judge to dismiss a case for lack of jurisdiction based on an erroneous understanding of the law. Once jurisdiction attaches based on the initial complaint, subsequent evidence cannot remove jurisdiction that has already vested in the court. The Supreme Court held the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in precipitately dismissing the case without a proper trial.

    Copyright:

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

    408 People V Ocaya

    Uploaded by

    KL
    440 views1 page
    The respondent judge dismissed a case charging serious physical injuries based solely on his review of medical records stating the injuries would require 7-10 days of treatment. However, a court's jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information, not by evidence or the judge's personal assessment without a proper trial. It is a grave abuse of discretion for a judge to dismiss a case for lack of jurisdiction based on an erroneous understanding of the law. Once jurisdiction attaches based on the initial complaint, subsequent evidence cannot remove jurisdiction that has already vested in the court. The Supreme Court held the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in precipitately dismissing the case without a proper trial.

    Original Title

    408 People v Ocaya

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The respondent judge dismissed a case charging serious physical injuries based solely on his review of medical records stating the injuries would require 7-10 days of treatment. However, a court's jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information, not by evidence or the judge's personal assessment without a proper trial. It is a grave abuse of discretion for a judge to dismiss a case for lack of jurisdiction based on an erroneous understanding of the law. Once jurisdiction attaches based on the initial complaint, subsequent evidence cannot remove jurisdiction that has already vested in the court. The Supreme Court held the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in precipitately dismissing the case without a proper trial.

    Copyright:

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

    408 People V Ocaya

    Uploaded by

    KL
    The respondent judge dismissed a case charging serious physical injuries based solely on his review of medical records stating the injuries would require 7-10 days of treatment. However, a court's jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information, not by evidence or the judge's personal assessment without a proper trial. It is a grave abuse of discretion for a judge to dismiss a case for lack of jurisdiction based on an erroneous understanding of the law. Once jurisdiction attaches based on the initial complaint, subsequent evidence cannot remove jurisdiction that has already vested in the court. The Supreme Court held the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in precipitately dismissing the case without a proper trial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGEST

    TOPIC Jurisdiction determined by allegations in the Complaint or Information


    CASE TITLE People v Judge Ocaya
    GR NO. L-47448 DATE: May 17, 1978
    DOCTRINE
    It is elemental that the jurisdiction of a court in criminal cases is determined by the allegations of the
    information or criminal complaint and not by the result of the evidence presented at the trial, 1 much less by
    the trial judge’s personal appraisal of the affidavits and exhibits attached by the fiscal to the record of the
    case without hearing the parties and their witnesses nor receiving their evidence at a proper trial.
    FACTS
    A charge of serious physical injuries was filed against private respondents but Judge Ocaya after scanning
    the records and noting that the medical certificate stated that the injuries would require medical attention
    from seven (7) to ten (10) days and therefore may either be slight or less serious physical injuries only and
    without receiving the evidence or hearing the witnesses, precipitately dismissed the information for lack of
    jurisdiction on the erroneous notion that in physical injury cases, the duration of the treatment of the injury
    inflicted on the victim as indicated in the medical certificate determines the jurisdiction of the court.

    The MR was denied; hence, the fiscal filed the petition for certiorari.
    ISSUE
    Whether or not the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case?
    HELD
    YES. Respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in precipitately dismissing the case for
    alleged lack of jurisdiction on the mere basis of his totally wrong notion that what governs in the filing of a
    physical injury case is the medical certificate regarding the duration of treatment and "not what the victim
    declares because the same is self-serving."

    It is elemental that the jurisdiction of a court in criminal cases is determined by the allegations of the
    information or criminal complaint and not by the result of the evidence presented at the trial, much less by
    the trial judge’s personal appraisal of the affidavits and exhibits attached by the fiscal to the record of the
    case without hearing the parties and their witnesses nor receiving their evidence at a proper trial.

    It is equally elementary that the mere fact that evidence presented at the trial would indicate that a lesser
    offense outside the trial court’s jurisdiction was committed does not deprive the trial court of its jurisdiction
    which had vested in it under the allegations of the information as filed since" (once) the jurisdiction attaches
    to the person and subject matter of the litigation, the subsequent happening of events, although they are of
    such a character as would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance, will not operate to
    oust jurisdiction already attached.
    NOTES

    4C (2020 – 2021)

    You might also like