G.R. No. L-47305. March 16, 1987.
VIRGINIA B. ANCHETA, Assisted by Her Husband ALFREDO ANCHETA, petitioners, vs. HON. ANGEL A. DAQUIGAN, Presiding Judge, Branch I, Court of First Instance Second Judicial District, HON. FRANCISCO R. COLLADO, Special Counsel EDMUNDO Z. RIMANDO, Station Commander GALICANO R. LEONEN, JUAN ORDONO, FREDELINO ORDONO, ELISEO BIRATA, BALTAZAR MIRANDA, BOBBY OCHOCO, MATIAS OPERARIO, JR. and FLORENTINO ACOSTA, respondents.

FACTS

A criminal complaint for theft was filed in the Municipal Court of San Fernando, La Union, against Hank Schwartz, Gertrudes Schwartz, and six John Does. Petitioner Virginia B. Ancheta was the complainant. After a preliminary investigation, the Municipal Court issued warrants for the Schwartz spouses. Their counsel waived the second stage of preliminary investigation, prompting the court to forward the case to the Court of First Instance (CFI) for trial, where it was docketed as Criminal Case No. 534. Subsequently, petitioner identified the John Does as seven individuals (the private respondents) and requested the Provincial Fiscal to amend the information. While the Fiscal’s office was conducting its own preliminary investigation, these seven accused voluntarily surrendered to the Municipal Court. Respondent Municipal Judge Collado then issued orders setting the case for a second-stage preliminary investigation for these new accused and directing the station commander to amend the original complaint to include their names.
Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus with the CFI, seeking to nullify the Municipal Judge’s orders and the amended complaint. The CFI initially granted a preliminary injunction but later dismissed the petition, dissolved the injunction, and ordered the remand of Criminal Case No. 534 to the Municipal Court for trial on the merits. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to this petition for review.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Municipal Court of San Fernando retained jurisdiction to conduct a preliminary investigation and order the amendment of the complaint after it had forwarded the case records to the Court of First Instance for trial on the merits.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CFI decision, ruling that the Municipal Court retained jurisdiction. The legal logic is anchored on the doctrine of prior jurisdiction and the nature of concurrent jurisdiction over the offense. Theft, being punishable by a penalty within the concurrent jurisdiction of both inferior courts and courts of first instance, means the court which first acquires jurisdiction retains it to the exclusion of the other. Jurisdiction, once acquired, subsists until the case is finally decided.
Here, the Municipal Court acquired exclusive jurisdiction upon the filing of the criminal complaint. The mere transmittal of the records to the CFI, absent the filing of a corresponding information by the Provincial Fiscal, did not divest the Municipal Court of its jurisdiction or vest jurisdiction in the CFI. The Provincial Fiscal’s expressed preference for the CFI as a forum was inconsequential since no information was filed there. Consequently, the Municipal Court was not deprived of its authority to order the amendment of the complaint to include the newly identified accused and to conduct the necessary preliminary investigation concerning them. The CFI correctly ordered the remand of the case to the Municipal Court for trial on the merits.