Theft motion to dismiss

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Second Judicial Region Branch __, Santiago City

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiffs, -versus-

Criminal Case No. _______ For: THEFT

 Accused. x-----------------------------------------------x

FORMAL ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

The PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, through the undersigned counsel respectfully enters its appearance as the counsel of record for the accused in this case. Thus, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that all notices, orders, and processes directed to the accused be sent to the undersigned counsel at its given address as indicated hereunder.

MOTION TO DISMISS  Accused, through the undersigned undersigned counsel, appearing especially and solely for this purpose, and to this Honorable Court, most respectfully moves for the dismissal of the Complaint on the following ground that THE HONORABLE COURT HAS NOT  ACQUIRED JURISDICTION JURISDICTION UNDER BP BP 129 and R.A R.A 10951. DISCUSSION I.

Information Informati on charging the herein accused of THEFT, defined under Article 308 and penalized under 309, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code was filed dated July 20, 2016. The Information states: “That on or about the 2 nd   day

of October , 2015 in the municipality of San Isidro, Province of Isabela, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with intent to gain and without the

knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, take, steal, and bring away one (1) unit LG cellphone valued at P15,000.00 belonging to one Charmaine Feliciano, without her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of said owner, in the aforesaid amount of P15,000. ”  II.

That under Section 81 of R.A 10951- A n Act A djus ting the

 A mount or the Value of Property and D amag e on Which a Penalty is B as ed and the Fines Impos ed Under the R evis ed Penal Code, A mending for the Purpose A ct No. 3815, Otherwise Known as “The Revised Penal Code”,

as A mended  SECTION 81. Article 309 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

 A R T. 309. P enalties . — A ny pers on g uilty of theft s hall be  puni s hed by:  3. The penalty of pris ión correccional in its minimum and medium periods , i f the value of the property s tolen is more than Twenty thousand pesos (₱20,000) but does not exceed Six hundred thousand pesos (₱600,000). III.

The amount being accused against SAMUEL DAQUIZ involves P15, 000, which has a penalty of Prision Coreccional   in its minimum and medium periods which is from 6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months / from 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months.

IV.

That under Section 2 of

Republic Act 7691,  A n A ct

Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts   provides that t he Municipal Trial Courts  has exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 6 years irrespective of the amount of fine, and, regardless of other accessory penalties, including civil liabilityarising 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.

V.

Also, Section 20. Of BP 129 provides that:

 J uris diction in cr iminal cases .  –  Regional Trial Courts

“

shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body, except those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter.” VI.

The penalty for theft which involves P15000 is Prision Correcional   which is less than 6 years of imprisonment, therefore, under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court.

VII.

Moreover, under  S E C TION 101. of R.A 10951, Transitory

Provision,  A pplicability to Pending C ases . — For cases pending before the courts upon the effectivity of this Act where trial has already started, the courts hearing such cases shall not lose jurisdiction over the same by virtue of this Act. VIII. That despite the fact that trial dates were already set, the prosecution has not yet presented its evidence. Therefore, the actual trial has not yet started. IX.

Considering the above premises, the Honorable Court, has no jurisdiction to try and hear the case.

PRAYER WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Office that the case be DISMISSED against the  Accused for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to BP 129 and R.A 10951. Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for. Santiago City, Philippines, January 17, 2018.