G.R. No. L-27318 July 31, 1970
EDUARDO CASTANDIELO, petitioner-appellant, vs. LUCILA REYES and FELIPE C. ANGELES, Municipal Judge of Marikina, Rizal, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

On November 2, 1965, Assistant Provincial Fiscal Salvacion Birco filed an information with the Municipal Court of Marikina, Rizal, charging Eduardo Castandielo with estafa involving P46,300.00—an offense beyond the municipal court’s original jurisdiction. The information included an unusual certification that a preliminary investigation had been conducted. The municipal judge took cognizance for preliminary examination and issued an arrest warrant. On November 14, 1965, upon motion of complainant Lucila Reyes, the municipal judge issued a writ of preliminary attachment against Castandielo’s properties over his objection, which included a challenge to the court’s jurisdiction to issue such a writ in a case beyond its original jurisdiction. Castandielo waived his right to the second stage of preliminary investigation on November 27, 1965, and the case was remanded to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal, where it was docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-6756. On February 23, 1966, Castandielo filed a motion in the CFI to lift the attachment, which was granted on March 4, 1966, upon his filing a counter-bond. Meanwhile, on December 7, 1965, Castandielo had filed a petition for certiorari with the CFI (Branch XI) to challenge the municipal judge’s issuance of the writ. The CFI denied the petition, holding that certiorari was improper as the issue could have been raised before the CFI (Branch IX) upon the case’s elevation.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance correctly denied the petition for certiorari, holding that Castandielo had another plain, speedy, and adequate remedy—specifically, by raising the issue of the writ’s legality before the CFI upon the elevation of the criminal case.

RULING

Yes, the Court of First Instance correctly denied the petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that Castandielo had another plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Upon the elevation of the criminal case records from the municipal court to the CFI, the proceedings in the CFI constitute a continuation of the criminal action. The CFI appropriately acquires the power to pass upon all matters related to the writ of preliminary attachment issued by the municipal court during the preliminary investigation. Therefore, Castandielo should have raised the question of the writ’s propriety or legality before the CFI (where the case was docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-6756) after its elevation on December 8, 1965. The fact that the CFI (Branch IX) later lifted the writ upon Castandielo’s motion and the filing of a counter-bond demonstrated the availability and efficacy of this remedy. The Supreme Court expressly reserved judgment on the underlying issue of whether a municipal court has the power to issue a writ of preliminary attachment in the course of a preliminary investigation for an offense beyond its original jurisdiction, deeming any discussion thereon obiter in light of the disposition on the propriety of the certiorari remedy.