ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 247937. September 9, 2019.]
NIKOLAUS STUMPF, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated09 September 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 247937 (Nikolaus Stumpf v. People of the Philippines)
Petitioner asserts that the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) do not have "exclusive" jurisdiction over estafa cases. It is shared by them with the first level courts, depending on the amount involved, and consequently, the imposable penalty. Supreme Court Circular No. 39-97 vests the RTCs with the power to issue Hold Departure Orders (HDOs) in cases within its "exclusive" like murder, parricide and rape, among others.
The argument must fail.
Under Section 32 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 as amended by Republic Act No. 7691 (RA 7691), first level courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years. On the other hand, the second level courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses which carry the penalty of more than six (6) years.
Section 85 of Republic Act No. 10951 1 (RA 10951) provides that in estafa cases, the penalty of prisioncorreccional in its maximum period (Four [4] years, two [2] months and one [1] day) to prisionmayor in its minimum period (six [6] years and one [1] day to eight [8] years) shall be imposed on the accused if the amount of fraud is over Two Million Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P2,400,000.00) but does not exceed Four Million Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P4,400,000.00), viz.:
SEC. 85. Article 315 of the same Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 4885, Presidential Decree No. 1689, and Presidential Decree No. 818, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein below shall be punished by:
1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over Two million four hundred thousand pesos (P2,400,000) but does not exceed Four million four hundred thousand pesos (P4,400,000) x x x
Here, the amount involved is P2,510,000.00. The imposable penalty then shall be within the range of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, a penalty within the exclusive jurisdiction of the second level courts or the RTCs. The trial court, therefore, correctly took cognizance of the application for HDO.
A final note. While the Constitution guarantees one's right to liberty of abode and of changing the same as well as one's right to travel, lawful orders of the court may restrict the exercise of such right.
Notably, petitioner is a German national who only temporarily resides in the Philippines. He has no personal properties here. Although he posted a bail bond for his temporary liberty, the possibility that he will abscond is high. There is nothing to make him want to stay longer in the country.
Verily, holding petitioner within the reach of the courts through a hold departure order is considered as a valid restriction on his right to travel so he may be dealt with in accordance with law in the pending criminal case against him. The offended party in every criminal proceeding is no less than the People of the Philippines. It is to the best interest of the People that criminal prosecutions run their course and proceed to finality without undue delay, with the accused holding himself amenable at all times to Court Orders and processes. 2 So must it be.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the Orders dated November 22, 2018 and April 4, 2019, Regional Trial Court, Br. 60, Barili, Cebu, in Criminal Case No. CEB-BRL-3756, AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. An Act Adjusting the Amount or the Value of Property and Damage on which a Penalty is Based, and the Fines Imposed under the Revised Penal Code, amending for the Purpose Act No. 3815, otherwise known as "The Revised Penal Code," as amended.
2. See Silverio v. Court of Appeals, 273 Phil. 128, 134-135 (1991).