People vs. Daco

A conviction rendered by a justice of the peace court in a case for assault upon an agent of a person in authority is a nullity because such court has no jurisdiction over the offense except for preliminary investigation; it cannot support a plea of double jeopardy.

Porfirio Feloteo was a policeman of Busuanga, Palawan, and the charge against the Dacos and Mario Edonga was assault upon an agent of a person in authority under Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code. Justice of the peace courts have no jurisdiction over that offense except to conduct the preliminary investigation.

Porfirio Feloteo was a policeman of Busuanga, Palawan. On September 13, 1959, the Chief of Police of Busuanga filed a complaint in the Justice of the Peace Court against Isidro, Eustaquio, Teodorico, and Isaias, all surnamed Daco, and Mario Edonga, alleging that on or about 11:00 p.m. of September 12, 1959 at sitio Bangohon, Municipality of Busuanga, Province of Palawan, the accused, confederating with one another, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attacked Feloteo while he was in the performance of his official duty, causing him to suffer less serious physical injuries.

After receiving the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense during the preliminary investigation, the Justice of the Peace Court rendered a “decision” elevating the case, as against Isidro Daco, to the Court of First Instance, but convicting the other four accused for slight physical injuries and sentencing each of them to 10 days imprisonment. The record of the case showed that the Justice of the Peace Court of Busuanga heard the case only to conduct the corresponding preliminary investigation.

The “decision” notwithstanding, the provincial fiscal of Palawan filed an information with the Court of First Instance of Palawan charging all five accused with assault upon an agent of a person in authority, with physical injuries. The defendants — except Isidro Daco — moved to quash the information on the ground of double jeopardy, alleging that the crime charged therein necessarily included the crime of slight physical injuries of which they had been convicted and for which they had served sentence. The Court of First Instance sustained the motion to quash and dismissed the case, and the People appealed.

• Double Jeopardy: Respondents argued that the information should be quashed because the crime charged necessarily included slight physical injuries of which they had been convicted and for which they had served sentence.

• Jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Court: Whether the Justice of the Peace Court of Busuanga had jurisdiction to convict the four accused of slight physical injuries in a case for assault upon an agent of a person in authority.
• Double Jeopardy: Whether the plea of double jeopardy may be sustained on the basis of that conviction.

• Jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Court: No. Justice of the peace courts have no jurisdiction over assault upon an agent of a person in authority except for preliminary investigation; the record showed the Busuanga court heard the case only for preliminary investigation.
• Double Jeopardy: No. The conviction was a nullity because rendered by a court without jurisdiction, so the plea of double jeopardy cannot be sustained; one essential element is a judgment or final order by a competent court.

• Jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Court: The SC applied Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code and held that justice of the peace courts have no jurisdiction to entertain a case of assault against a person in authority or assault upon an agent of a person in authority except for preliminary investigation. It relied on Salabsalo vs. Ang Koy, Villanueva vs. Ortiz, and People vs. Romualdo. The record showed that the Justice of the Peace Court of Busuanga heard the case only to conduct the corresponding preliminary investigation. Therefore, its conviction of Eustaquio, Teodorico, and Isaias Daco and Mario Edonga for slight physical injuries was a nullity.
• Double Jeopardy: The SC ruled that the plea of double jeopardy could not be sustained because one of its essential elements—a judgment or final order rendered or issued by a competent court—was absent. Since the Justice of the Peace Court had no jurisdiction to convict the four accused, its “decision” was void and could not serve as the prior judgment required for double jeopardy. The dismissal based on that plea was therefore set aside.

• No Jurisdiction Except for Preliminary Investigation — Justice of the peace courts have no jurisdiction to entertain a case of assault against a person in authority or assault upon an agent of a person in authority except for preliminary investigation. The SC applied this to hold the JP court’s conviction for slight physical injuries void.
• Nullity of Judgment and Double Jeopardy — A judgment or final order rendered by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot satisfy the double jeopardy requirement of a valid prior judgment by a competent court. The SC applied this to reject the accused’s plea.
• Requisite of a Competent Court for Double Jeopardy — One essential element of double jeopardy is a judgment or final order rendered or issued by a competent court. The SC found this element absent because the JP court lacked jurisdiction.

• “That Justice of the Peace Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain a case of assault against a person in authority or of assault upon an agent of a person in authority except for preliminary investigation — has been repeatedly held heretofore.” — The SC states the jurisdictional rule governing justice of the peace courts over assault upon a person in authority or agent of a person in authority.
• “The conviction of Eustaquio, Teodorico, Isaias all named Daco, and Mario Edonga by the Justice of Peace Court of Busuanga being & nullity, their plea double jeopardy can not be sustained, one of its essential elements — a judgment or final order rendered or issued by a competent court — not being present.” — The SC concludes that the void conviction cannot support the plea of double jeopardy.
• “As a matter of fact, record of the present case shows positively that the Judgment of the Peace Court of Busuanga heard the case only to conduct the corresponding Preliminary investigation.” — The SC relies on the record to establish that the JP court acted only for preliminary investigation.

• Salabsalo, et al. vs. Ang Koy et al., G.R. No. L-15122, May 31, 1960 — Cited as a prior ruling holding that justice of the peace courts have no jurisdiction over assault upon a person in authority or agent of a person in authority except for preliminary investigation.
• Villanueva, etc. vs. Hon. Ortiz, et al., G.R. No. L-15344, May 30, 1960 — Cited for the same jurisdictional rule.
• People vs. Romualdo, No. L-3686, January 31, 1951 — Cited for the same jurisdictional rule.

• Article 148, Revised Penal Code — The SC cited this provision in holding that justice of the peace courts have no jurisdiction over assault against a person in authority or assault upon an agent of a person in authority except for preliminary investigation.