G.R. No. 68464. March 22, 1993.
FRANCISCO D. YAP and CARLITO H. VAILOCES, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, JUDGE AURELIO LOMEDA and ZOSIMO DY, SR., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Francisco D. Yap purchased three parcels of land from the Dumaguete Rural Bank, Inc. through a Deed of Sale with Agreement to Mortgage dated July 6, 1983. The Bank warranted it was the owner. Yap obtained a Writ of Possession from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Oriental on September 2, 1983, authorizing him to take physical possession of the properties. On September 5, 1983, Yap, accompanied by Deputy Sheriff Lucito Janiola and co-petitioner Carlito H. Vailoces, served the writ and two days later caused the harvesting of coconuts on the land. Private respondent Zosimo Dy, Sr., claiming to be the owner of the parcels, filed a complaint for qualified theft against Yap, Vailoces, the sheriff, and coconut gatherers before the Municipal Circuit Court presided by respondent Judge Aurelio Lomeda. During preliminary investigation, Yap and Vailoces filed a Motion to Quash based on the Writ of Possession. In an Order dated December 13, 1983, Judge Lomeda denied the motion, found probable cause against Yap and Vailoces, ordered their arrest, but absolved the sheriff and gatherers. Yap and Vailoces were arrested on January 3, 1984, and refused to post bail. They filed an urgent Petition for Habeas Corpus and/or Certiorari and Prohibition before the RTC of Negros Oriental. On January 5, 1984, the RTC granted certiorari, annulled Judge Lomeda’s order, and ordered the dismissal of the case, but denied the writ of habeas corpus. Respondent Dy appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals), which reversed the RTC in a decision promulgated on July 31, 1984, setting aside the annulment and ordering the lower court to forward the records to the Provincial Fiscal for the filing of an information if warranted. Petitioners filed a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether a warrant of arrest for qualified theft issued by a municipal judge against petitioners, who acted on the basis of a writ of possession, can be annulled through a writ of certiorari granted by a regional trial court judge.

RULING

No. Certiorari does not lie to annul the municipal judge’s order finding probable cause and ordering arrest. The municipal judge had jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation to determine if probable cause existed. At the time (order issued December 13, 1983), the procedure was governed by Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1981). Section 37 of B.P. Blg. 129 recognized the authority of municipal trial courts to conduct preliminary investigation of crimes cognizable by the RTC, provided the crimes were committed within their territorial jurisdiction, in accordance with the procedure in Presidential Decree No. 911. The judge may issue a warrant of arrest if, after examining the complainant and witnesses, he finds probable cause. Respondent judge had the authority to conduct the preliminary investigation and issue the warrant based on his finding of probable cause. Petitioners were not without plain, speedy, and adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law, such as posting bail, asking the Provincial Fiscal for reinvestigation, filing a motion to quash the information in the trial court if dissatisfied, and appealing an adverse judgment after trial. The Supreme Court also noted that the certificate of sale held by petitioners was merely a memorial of the fact of sale and did not confer a right to possession or ownership; the effective conveyance is the deed of sale executed by the Sheriff after the redemption period. Thus, questions regarding petitioners’ acts based on the writ of possession were evidentiary matters for trial, and respondent judge was correct in not immediately dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court.