EN
BANC
THE
UNITED STATES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. 16388
July
21,
1920
-versus-
GREGORIO
JIMENEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
D
E C I S I
O N
VILLAMOR,
J :
The appellant in this cause
was sentenced by the Court of First Instances of Manila to four months
of arresto mayor and payment of costs for the crime of lesiones
graves by reckless imprudence. The Information by virtue of which
he
was tried and found guilty is as follows:
"That on or about
November
20, 1918, in the City of Manila, Philippine Islands, the said accused,
being then the motorman and person in charge of electric car No. 150
which
was among those making the run between Pasay and San Juan, ran and
operated
said car along Calle P. Burgos in this city, in a careless, negligent
and
imprudent manner, giving it a greater speed than traffic conditions
permitted
and without taking the proper precautions in order to avoid accidents
to
life and damages to property, thereby causing his car through his said
imprudence, recklessness and carelessness, to strike and knock down a
boy
named Aurelio Ibahes, who, as a result thereof, lost a principal
member,
which is his left arm, and suffered the consequent injuries which will
require medical assistance for a period of more than thirty days and
incapacitate
him permanently for manual labor, contrary to the law in such case made
and provided."
The
brief for the appellant
having been presented, the Attorney-General asks in his motion of May
27,
1920, that the cause be dismissed in order that the accused may be
tried
by a competent court, it being alleged that by reason of the subject
matter
of the suit the Court of First Instance lacked jurisdiction over the
case
charged in the information.
In order to determine
the jurisdiction of the Court in criminal cases, the Complaint must be
examined for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the facts set
out
therein and the punishment provided for by law for such acts, fall
within
the jurisdiction of the court in which the Complaint is presented. If
the
facts set out in the Complaint are sufficient to show that the Court in
which the complaint is presented has jurisdiction, then the Court has
jurisdiction.
[U. S. vs. Mallari and Cueson, 24 Phil., 366].
A careful examination
of the Information herein quoted shows that the facts therein stated
would
constitute, had malice been present, the crime of lesiones graves
punished with a correctional penalty, that is, with prision
correccional
in its medium and maximum degree, according to case No. 2,
article
416, of the Penal Code. If, as alleged in the Information, there was
reckless
imprudence, then the same acts fall under the provisions of the first
paragraph,
Case No. 2, of Article 568 of the same Code, which imposes the penalty
of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium degree. It,
therefore,
results that the penalty which the law fixes upon the criminal act
complained
of in the Information cannot exceed four months of arresto mayor
and, therefore, the Court of First Instance, according to Section 56,
Paragraph
6, of Act No. 136, had no original ,jurisdiction of the case by reason
of its subject matter.
If, malice being
present,
the facts set out in the Information, were punished with an afflictive
penalty, they would, when committed by reckless imprudence, fall under
the provisions of the first paragraph, first case, of said Article 568
of the Penal Code, which imposes the penalty of arresto mayor
in
its maximum degree to prision correccional in its
minimum-degree,
that is, from four months and one day of arresto mayor to two
years
and four months of prision correccional. In this case the Court
of First Instance would have jurisdiction of the case and could impose
the penalty which, according to the evidence, should be imposed, even
if
said penalty should be lower than that which is within the original
jurisdiction
of the court to impose. [U. S. vs. Mallari and Cueson, supra].
The accused did not
object to the jurisdiction of the Court, nor did he answer the motion
of
the Attorney-General in which the dismissal of the appeal is asked,
although
he has been notified thereof. His silence, however, produces no effect,
for when jurisdiction has not been conferred by law, the accused in a
criminal
case cannot confer it by express waiver or otherwise. [U. S. vs. De la
Santa, 9 Phil., 22; U.S. vs. Jayme, 24 Phil., 90].
In view of what has
been said, the present case is dismissed without any special
pronouncement
as to costs, the Attorney-General being granted the right to institute
in any competent court the action which he may deem necessary for the
prosecution
of the same crime. So ordered.
Mapa, C.J.,
Johnson, Carson, Araullo, Malcolm and Avanceña, JJ.,
concur. |