GR L 47373; (April, 1941) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-47373. April 28, 1941.
NGO HOK CHEF, petitioner and appellee, vs. VICENTE AQUINO, Justice of the Peace of Iligan, Lanao, respondent and appellant.
FACTS
On April 21, 1939, the petitioner, Ngo Hok Chef, filed a complaint for serious oral defamation against Bernardo Picardel in the justice of the peace court of Iligan, Lanao. A preliminary investigation was conducted on May 4, 1939, before the respondent judge, Vicente Aquino. The complainant presented evidence he deemed sufficient to establish probable cause. After the complainant’s presentation, the accused presented his evidence. On May 12, 1939, instead of elevating the case to the corresponding Court of First Instance or dismissing it, the respondent judge decided the case on its merits. He convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay a fine of ten pesos (P10) and costs. The judge based his decision on a finding that the crime committed was not the serious oral defamation alleged in the complaint, but the less serious offense, which he believed fell within his jurisdiction.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent justice of the peace acted without jurisdiction in trying and deciding the criminal case on its merits after conducting a preliminary investigation for an offense alleged to be beyond his jurisdiction.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, declaring the respondent judge’s decision null and void. The Court ruled that when a complaint alleges facts constituting an offense outside the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court, the judge’s duty after a preliminary investigation is solely to determine whether or not there is probable cause to believe the accused is guilty. If probable cause exists, the case must be elevated to the corresponding Court of First Instance. If no probable cause exists, the case must be dismissed. Under no circumstances may a justice of the peace try and decide such a case on its merits. By doing so, as in this instance, the judge acted without jurisdiction, rendering the judgment null and void.
An additional reason supporting the petitioner’s claim of excess of jurisdiction was noted. The petitioner had placed on record, before closing his evidence, that the proofs presented were sufficient for the purposes of the preliminary investigation only, indicating he had other evidence available. Therefore, even assuming the judge had jurisdiction to try and decide the case, he still exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding it without giving the complainant the opportunity to present all his available evidence to substantiate the allegations in the complaint. The decision was annulled, without costs.