G.R. No. L-31447 June 27, 1975
AURELIO R. BANZON, petitioner, vs. HON. FEDERICO L. CABATO, as Judge of the City Court of Baguio City, Branch III, and RAMONA VILLARUZ, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Aurelio Banzon was charged with estafa before the City Court of Baguio for allegedly misrepresenting himself as the owner of a lot and selling it to respondent Ramona Villaruz. The case was initially dismissed by another branch of the same court upon Banzon’s motion due to the absence of a prior preliminary investigation. The complaint was refiled with the City Fiscal’s office, which, after conducting a preliminary investigation, dismissed it for lack of probable cause, finding that Banzon had merely transferred his rights under a Townsite Sales Application, not ownership of the land itself.
Subsequently, Villaruz refiled the identical complaint directly with Branch III of the City Court, presided by respondent Judge Cabato. The offense alleged carried a penalty within the concurrent jurisdiction of the city court and the Court of First Instance. Judge Cabato issued a notice setting the case for preliminary examination and investigation, citing Section 13 of Rule 112. Banzon moved to dismiss, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to conduct such an investigation for a case within its concurrent jurisdiction. The respondent judge denied the motion, prompting Banzon to file this petition for certiorari and prohibition.

ISSUE

Whether a city court has the authority to conduct a preliminary investigation for an offense falling within its concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the negative, granting the petition. The legal logic hinges on the proper interpretation of the Revised Rules of Court concerning preliminary investigations. The Court clarified the distinction between cases within the exclusive original jurisdiction of inferior courts and those within their concurrent jurisdiction with Courts of First Instance. Under Section 10 of Rule 112, no preliminary investigation is required for offenses cognizable by municipal or city courts. The Court, citing People v. Figueroa, held this rule applies without distinction to all cases triable by inferior courts, whether under their exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction.
The rationale is that for cases triable by inferior courts, the trial on the merits itself substitutes for the preliminary investigation, avoiding needless duplication. A preliminary investigation is a prerequisite only when the case is originally filed with the Court of First Instance. Since the estafa charge against Banzon was within the concurrent jurisdiction of the City Court of Baguio, Judge Cabato had no authority to conduct a preliminary investigation. His duty was to proceed directly to trial if he found probable cause from the complaint. Therefore, the assailed order was issued without jurisdiction and was annulled. The temporary restraining order was made permanent.