Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • People Vs Blanco Digest

    Uploaded by

    Russell John Hipolito
    132 views1 page
    1) The case involved two individuals charged with theft of trousers valued at P28 in Ilo-Ilo City. 2) The municipal judge believed he did not have jurisdiction and sent the case to the Court of First Instance of Ilo-ilo. However, the city fiscal filed a motion for the case to be returned, which was denied. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the municipal court of Iloilo has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance over cases of theft where the amount stolen does not exceed P200. Therefore, the municipal court, not the Court of First Instance, had proper jurisdiction over this case.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    3. People vs Blanco Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) The case involved two individuals charged with theft of trousers valued at P28 in Ilo-Ilo City. 2) The municipal judge believed he did not have jurisdiction and sent the case to the Court of First Instance of Ilo-ilo. However, the city fiscal filed a motion for the case to be returned, which was denied. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the municipal court of Iloilo has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance over cases of theft where the amount stolen does not exceed P200. Therefore, the municipal court, not the Court of First Instance, had proper jurisdiction over this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    132 views1 page

    People Vs Blanco Digest

    Uploaded by

    Russell John Hipolito
    1) The case involved two individuals charged with theft of trousers valued at P28 in Ilo-Ilo City. 2) The municipal judge believed he did not have jurisdiction and sent the case to the Court of First Instance of Ilo-ilo. However, the city fiscal filed a motion for the case to be returned, which was denied. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the municipal court of Iloilo has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance over cases of theft where the amount stolen does not exceed P200. Therefore, the municipal court, not the Court of First Instance, had proper jurisdiction over this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

    MANUEL BLANCO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of


    Iloilo
    No. L-2700
    January 13, 1950
    BENGZON, J.:

    FACTS:

    On September 28, 1948, in the municipality of Ilo-Ilo, the fiscal of said city filed against Claudio
    Galicto and Roberto Sevilla an information charging them with the crime of theft of two trousers valued
    at P28. The information also alleged that the two are habitual delinquents having been convicted of
    theft on previous occasions. The municipal Judge believing that he has no jurisdiction, forwarded the
    case to the Court of First Instance of Ilo-ilo. The city fiscal submitted on September 30, 1948 a motion for
    the return which was denied by the respondent judge who took jurisdiction of the case. Hence this
    petition for certiorari and mandamus.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Ilo-ilo has jurisdiction of the case.

    RULING:

    No, the charter of the City of Iloilo provides that its municipal court shall have concurrent
    jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance "over cases for larceny, embezzlement and estafa where the
    amount of money or property stolen or embezzled does not exceed two hundred pesos.”

    The jurisdiction of the municipal court of Iloilo, like that of Manila, in the matter of theft or
    estafa, does not depend upon the extent of the penalty, but upon the value of the property stolen or
    embezzled.

    Thus, the jurisdiction of the case was returned to the municipal court.

    You might also like