Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. YOLANDA VELASCO Y PAMINTUAN

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 185379 2009-11-27	PEOPLE v. VS.ZENAIDA QUEBRAL Y MATEO ABAD, J.
The CA and the RTC gave credence to the testimony of PO3 Galvez and this Court finds no reason for disagreement.His narration was clear and candid.On the other hand, the accused-appellants' claim of a "frame-up" was easy to concoct and so has been the common line of defense in most cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[25]Such defense requires strong and convincing evidence which the accused-appellants failed to satisfy.
	GR No. 154557 2008-02-13	PEOPLE v. The CA VELASCO JR., J.
x x x x It must be stressed that the abovementioned provision vested concurrent jurisdiction upon the said courts regardless of the imposable penalty. In fine, the jurisdiction of the trial court (RTC) over the case of the appellant was conferred by the aforecited law then in force (R.A. 6425 before amendment) when the information was filed. Jurisdiction attached upon the commencement of the action and could not be ousted by the passage of R.A. 7691 reapportioning the jurisdiction of inferior courts, the application of which to criminal cases is, to stress, prospective in nature.[20] (Emphasis supplied.) This Court categorically reiterated the above ruling in the 2003 case of Yu Oh v. Court of Appeals,[21] in the 2004 case of Alonto v. People,[22] and in the 2005 case of Lee v. Court of Appeals.[23]
	GR No. 149995 2007-09-28	ISIDRO PABLITO M. PALANA v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The subsequent amendment of B.P. 129 by R.A. No. 7691, "An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts and the Metropolitan Trial Court"[19] on June 15, 1994 cannot divest the Regional Trial Court of jurisdiction over petitioner's case. Where a court has already obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdiction to proceed to the final determination of the cause is not affected by new legislation placing jurisdiction over such proceedings in another tribunal unless the statute expressly provides, or is construed to the effect that it is intended to operate on actions pending before its enactment. Indeed, R.A. No. 7691 contains retroactive provisions. However, these only apply to civil cases that have not yet reached the pre-trial stage. Neither from an express proviso nor by implication can it be construed that R.A. No. 7691 has retroactive application to criminal cases pending or decided by the Regional Trial Courts prior to its effectivity.[20] The jurisdiction of the RTC over the case attached upon the commencement of the action by the filing of the Information and could not be ousted by the passage of R.A. No. 7691 reapportioning the jurisdiction of inferior courts, the application of which to criminal cases is prospective in nature.[21]
	GR NO. 129472 2005-04-12	MARCELO LASOY v. MONINA A. ZENAROSA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This issue is further settled by the concurring opinion of Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., in People v. Velasco:[44]
	GR NO. 145498 2005-01-17	BENJAMIN LEE v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Since the Information in the present case was filed prior to the amendment of R.A. No. 7691, the old rule governs and therefore, considering that the imposable penalty for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 per Section 1, thereof is imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one year OR by a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check which fine shall in no case exceed P200,000.00, or both fine and imprisonment; and inasmuch as the fine imposable in the present case is more than P4,000.00 as the subject amount of the check is P980,000.00, it is the Regional Trial Court that has jurisdiction over the present case. As we held in People vs. Velasco:[36]
	GR No. 125297 2003-06-06	ELVIRA YU OH v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Solicitor General, in its Comment, counters that the arguments of petitioner are baseless contending that: penal laws are those which define crimes and provides for their punishment; laws defining the jurisdiction of courts are substantive in nature and not procedural for they do not refer to the manner of trying cases but to the authority of the courts to hear and decide certain and definite cases in the various instances of which they are susceptible; R.A. No. 7691 is a substantive law and not a penal law as nowhere in its provisions does it define a crime neither does it provide a penalty of any kind; the purpose of enacting R.A. No. 7691 is laid down in the opening sentence thereof as "An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts and the Metropolitan Trial Court" whereby it reapportions the jurisdiction of said courts to cover certain civil and criminal case, erstwhile tried exclusively by the Regional Trial Courts; consequently, Art. 22 of the RPC finds no application to the case at bar; jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at the time of the filing of the complaint, and once acquired, jurisdiction is not affected by subsequent legislative enactments placing jurisdiction in another tribunal; in this case, the RTC was vested with jurisdiction to try petitioner's cases when the same were filed in October 1992; at that time, R.A. No. 7691 was not yet effective;[12] in so far as the retroactive effect of R.A. No. 7691 is concerned, that same is limited only to pending civil cases that have not reached pre-trial stage as provided for in Section 7 thereof and as clarified by this Court in People vs. Yolanda Velasco[13], where it was held: "[a] perusal of R.A. No. 7691 will show that its retroactive provisions apply only to civil cases that have not yet reached the pre-trial stage. Neither from an express proviso nor by implication can it be understood as having retroactive application to criminal cases pending or decided by the RTC prior to its effectivity."[14]