Facts:
In 1940, the Subdivision Inc, of which Montelibano is the president and general manager, leased a lot to Benares for five years, with an option in favor of Benares of another five crop years. On 1951, the Subdivision instituted against Benares an unlawful detainer case which rendered a decision ordering him to eject from the said lot. However, Benares continued planting on the said lot, instead of delivering it to Subdivision. Acting upon Montelibano, his co-petitioners cleared the land of sugarcane planted by Benares. Hence, a criminal case was filed by Benares against petitiioners. A warrant of arrest was then filed to the petitioners. Monteibano and his companions filed a motion to quash the complaint and warrant of arrest A civil case against Municipal Judge and Benares was filed alleging that the said judge had o jurisdiction to take cognizance of the criminal case.
Issue:
Whether or not the municipal court may entertain the criminal case relying upon CA 326, section 22 (Charter of the City of Bacolod) which provides that the City Attorney shall charge of the prosecution of all crimes, misdemeanors, and violations of city ordinances, in the Court of First Instance and the Municipal Court of Bacolod.
Held:
No, the Judge of Municipal Court has no jurisdiction over the case.
In the interpretation of reenacted statutes the court will follow the construction which they received when previously in force. The legislature will be presumed to know the effect which such status originally had, and by reenactment to intend that they should again have the same effect.
Two statutes with a parallel scope, purpose and terminology should, each in its own field, have a like interpretation, unless in particular instances there is something peculiar in the question under consideration, or dissimilar in the terms of the act relating thereto, requiring a different conclusion.
In the case at bar, the same provisions were contested in Sayo v. Chief of Police wherein it was held that in the City of Manila, criminal complaints may be filed only with the City Fiscal who is given the exclusive authority to institute criminal cases in the different courts of said city, under the provisions of its Charter found in Sec 39 of Act # 183. The provisions of the Charter of City of Bacolod which are substantially identical to that of Manila should then be interpreted the same.
Therefore, the decision appealed is reversed and the warrant of arrest issued by the judge shall be annulled.
No comments:
Post a Comment