G.R. No. L-51773 May 16, 1980
LT. COL. RODRIGO S. DE GUZMAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners, vs. MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT JUDGE MARCELINO M. ESCALONA, FLORENTINO RODRIGO, and MARIANO DAYDAY, respondents.

FACTS

A criminal complaint was filed before respondent Municipal Circuit Court Judge Marcelino M. Escalona, charging Florentino Rodrigo and Mariano Dayday with illegal possession of explosives (“dinamita”) for use in illegal fishing, allegedly a violation of Presidential Decree No. 1058. The complaint was explicitly filed for preliminary investigation. The accused were arrested after being found in a banca with bottles of dynamite. Instead of conducting a preliminary investigation, respondent Judge motu proprio treated the complaint as one for violation of the old Act No. 3023 , reasoning that the possession was for fishing and not for subversion. Assuming original jurisdiction, he arraigned the accused, who pleaded guilty, and subsequently convicted and sentenced them under Act No. 3023 .
Petitioner Lt. Col. De Guzman, joined by the Solicitor General, assailed this action via certiorari. They argued that the offense charged fell under P.D. No. 704, as amended by P.D. No. 1058, with penalties within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court). They contended that Act No. 3023 had been repealed and that the judge exceeded his jurisdiction by rendering a judgment on the merits from a complaint filed only for preliminary investigation.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Municipal Circuit Court Judge had jurisdiction to try the offense and render judgment based on a criminal complaint filed solely for preliminary investigation.

RULING

No, the respondent Judge acted without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that the complaint filed was explicitly for preliminary investigation, not an information for an offense within the court’s original jurisdiction. A preliminary investigation is a pre-trial inquiry to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty, to be held for trial. It is not a trial on the merits. By proceeding to arraign, try, and convict the accused, respondent Judge converted the preliminary investigation into a trial, which he had no authority to do. The offense alleged—illegal possession of explosives for fishing under P.D. No. 1058—carried a penalty of imprisonment exceeding six years, placing it within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. Municipal courts only had jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation for such offenses, not to try them. Consequently, the judgment rendered was null and void for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. The Court set aside the decision and remanded the case to the respondent Judge to conduct the preliminary investigation properly. No double jeopardy attached as the judgment was void from the beginning.