D E C I S
I O N
(3rd
Division)
NACHURA, J.:
I.
THE FACTS
On July 8, 1994, an information
for reckless imprudence resulting
in homicide was filed against the petitioner before the RTC of Bulacan.
Trial on the merits ensued and on August 19, 1998, the trial court convicted
the petitioner as charged.
In his appeal before the CA, the petitioner
questioned, among others, for the first time, the trial court's jurisdiction.
The appellate court, however, in the challenged decision, considered the
petitioner to have actively participated in the trial and to have belatedly
attacked the jurisdiction of the RTC; thus, he was already estopped by laches
from asserting the trial court's lack of jurisdiction. Finding no other ground
to reverse the trial court's decision, the CA affirmed the petitioner's
conviction but modified the penalty imposed and the damages awarded.
Dissatisfied, the petitioner
filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.
II.
THE ISSUES
Does the failure
of the petitioner to raise the issue of [lack of] jurisdiction during the trial
of this case, which was initiated and filed by the public prosecutor before the
wrong court [the respondent RTC], constitute laches in relation to the doctrine laid down in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, notwithstanding
the fact that said issue was immediately raised in petitioner's appeal to the
Honorable Court of Appeals? Conversely, does the active participation of the
petitioner in the trial of his case, which is initiated and filed not by him
but by the public prosecutor, amount to estoppel?
III.
THE RULING
[The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition and DISMISSED the case without prejudice.]
NO, the
failure of the petitioner to raise the issue of [lack of] jurisdiction during
the trial of this case DOES NOT constitute laches in relation to the doctrine
laid down in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy; NO, the active participation of the
petitioner in the trial of his case DOES NOT amount to estoppel.
Applied
uniformly is the familiar rule 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, unless such statute provides for a retroactive application
thereof. In this case, at the time the criminal information for reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide with violation of the Automobile Law (now Land
Transportation and Traffic Code) was filed, Section 32(2) of B.P. 129 had already been
amended by R.A. 7691. The said provision reads:
Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal
Cases. -- Except in cases falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall
exercise:
x x x x
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine,
and 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 original jurisdiction thereof.
As the imposable penalty for the crime charged
herein is prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods or imprisonment for 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 6 years,
jurisdiction to hear and try the same is conferred on the Municipal Trial
Courts (MTCs). Clearly, therefore, the RTC of Bulacan does not have
jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 2235-M-94.
While both the appellate court
and the Solicitor General acknowledge this fact, they nevertheless are of the
position that the principle of estoppel by laches has already precluded the
petitioner from questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC--the trial went on for
4 years with the petitioner actively participating therein and without him ever
raising the jurisdictional infirmity. The petitioner, for his part, counters
that the lack of jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter may be raised
at any time even for the first time on appeal. As undue delay is further absent
herein, the principle of laches will not be applicable.
The general rule [is] that the issue of jurisdiction may be
raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, and is not lost by
waiver or by estoppel. Estoppel by laches, to bar a litigant from asserting the
court's absence or lack of jurisdiction, only supervenes in exceptional cases
similar to the factual milieu of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy. Indeed, the
fact that a person attempts to invoke unauthorized jurisdiction of a court does
not estop him from thereafter challenging its jurisdiction over the subject
matter, since such jurisdiction must arise by law and not by mere consent of
the parties. This is especially true where the person seeking to invoke
unauthorized jurisdiction of the court does not thereby secure any advantage or
the adverse party does not suffer any harm.
Applying the said doctrine to the
instant case, the petitioner is in no way estopped by laches in assailing the
jurisdiction of the RTC, considering that he raised the lack thereof in his
appeal before the appellate court. At that time, no considerable period had yet
elapsed for laches to attach. True, delay alone, though unreasonable, will not
sustain the defense of “estoppel by laches” unless it further appears
that the party, knowing his rights, has not sought to enforce them until the
condition of the party pleading laches has in good faith become so changed that
he cannot be restored to his former state, if the rights be then enforced, due
to loss of evidence, change of title, intervention of equities, and other
causes. In
applying the principle of estoppel by laches in the exceptional case of Sibonghanoy,
the Court therein considered the patent and revolting inequity and unfairness
of having the judgment creditors go up their Calvary once more after more or
less 15 years. The same, however, does not obtain in the instant case.
No comments:
Post a Comment