GR L 16152; (March, 1964) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-16152; March 31, 1964
JOSE ARIVE, SR. Y TORRE, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE HONORABLE VICENTE S. TUASON, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Municipal Court of Naga City, Br. I, respondent-appellee.
FACTS
On September 29, 1958, the Chief of Police of Naga City charged Jose Arive, Sr. with frustrated murder via a letter to the City Attorney. The City Attorney questioned the named witnesses, found a prima facie case, and filed the corresponding information with the Municipal Court of Naga for preliminary investigation (Criminal Case No. 8463). The court conducted the first stage of the investigation, found probable cause, issued a warrant for Arive’s arrest, and granted his provisional release upon filing a bond.
At the scheduled second stage, Arive pleaded not guilty but did not present exculpatory evidence or waive the investigation. Instead, he filed a motion to remand the case to the City Attorney’s Office, asserting that the City Attorney, not the Municipal Court, had jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation. The Municipal Court denied this motion.
ISSUE
The legal issue is whether the City Attorney of Naga or the Municipal Court of Naga City has jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation of criminal offenses committed within the city and cognizable by the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the petition, ruling that the Municipal Court of Naga correctly exercised jurisdiction. The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Naga City Charter (Republic Act No. 305). Section 24(f) grants the City Attorney the power to investigate charges and prepare informations, including the authority to summon witnesses. However, Section 77 expressly provides that the Municipal Court “may also conduct preliminary investigation for any offense, without regard to the limits of punishment.”
The Court held that, viewing the provisions most favorably to the appellant, any jurisdiction granted to the City Attorney to conduct a preliminary investigation under the Rules of Court is merely concurrent with the explicit jurisdiction granted to the Municipal Court by its charter. In this instance, the City Attorney exercised his investigatory authority to determine if a crime was committed and if the accused was probably guilty, leading to the filing of the information. He did not conduct a preliminary investigation under the Rules of Court. The subsequent proceedings, where the Municipal Court lawfully commenced the preliminary investigation, were therefore valid. The Court found no jurisdictional error in the Municipal Court’s denial of the motion to remand.