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 DISTRIC…

Submitted for decision on June 13, 1979, this
is a petition for review on certiorari of the June
17, 1977 Decision of the Court of First Instance of La Union,
dismissing petitioner’s petition for lack of merit; dissolving the writ of
preliminary injunction of January 12, 1977; and ordering the remand
of Criminal Case No. 534 to the Municipal Court for trial on the
merits.

A criminal complaint for theft was filed with the Municipal Court
of San Fernando, La Union, presided over by respondent Judge Francisco Collado, against Hank Schwartz, Gertrudes Schwartz and six (6) John Does, which complaint
was docketed as Criminal Case No. 11244.  The herein petitioner was
the complainant in the said case, she, being the owner of the stolen personal
properties worth P9,880.00.

The Municipal Court, after conducting a preliminary investigation,
issued a warrant of arrest against Hank Schwartz and Gertrudes Schwartz.The six (6) John Does were not
identified by the prosecution witnesses.

Subsequently, the Municipal Court, acting on a written waiver of
the second stage of preliminary investigation filed by counsel for the two (2)
identified accused (Hank Schwartz and Gertrudes
Schwartz), in an Order dated October 5, 1976 (Record, p. 31), forwarded the case
to the Court of First Instance of La Union (where it was docketed as
Criminal Case No. 534) for trial on the merits.

On October 18, 1976, after the Clerk of Court of the Court
of First Instance of La Union had transmitted the records of the case to the
Provincial Fiscal of La Union, herein petitioner Virginia B. Ancheta wrote a letter to the Provincial Fiscal, giving the
names of the John Does mentioned in the complaint and stating that there were
seven (7) of them instead of six (6); and she also asked that the
date for the investigation of her witnesses who know the names of the John Does
be set and thereafter the corresponding amendment of the information be
made.  (Ibid., p.
32).

On November 6,
1976, First Assistant Provincial Fiscal Francisco M. Tejano issued an Order for the preliminary investigation of
the seven (7) other accused, previously referred to as John Does
(Ibid., p. 33).  On November 15, 1976, another Order was issued requiring the
said accused to submit their counter-affidavits within ten (10) days from
receipt of the said order (Ibid., p. 34).

However, while the Fiscal’s Office
was still conducting its preliminary investigation, the seven (7)
accused, the herein private respondents, voluntarily surrendered to respondent
Municipal Judge, who issued an Order dated November 19, 1976, setting the case
(Criminal Case No. 11244) for the second stage of preliminary investigation
insofar as the said accused were concerned.  Informed of the said
Order of November 19,
1976, petitioner questioned the propriety of the said
order in a letter sent to the respondent Municipal Judge (Ibid., pp.
37-38).

In the meantime, on November 22, 1976, respondent Municipal Judge issued
another Order directing the Station Commander of San
Fernando, La Union, Galicano M.
Leonen, to amend the original complaint by including
the names of the seven (7) accused who surrendered (Ibid., p.
36).

Pursuant to the said Order, Station Commander Galicano M. Leonen amended the
complaint by including the names of the seven (7) other accused (Ibid.,
pp. 39-40).

Herein petitioner Virginia B. Ancheta then brought a Petition for Certiorari,
Prohibition and Mandamus, with prayer for writ of preliminary
injunction, with the Court of First
Instance of La Union, presided over by respondent
Judge Angel A. Daquigan, seeking, among other things
the nullification of the November 19 and 22, 1976 Orders of respondent Municipal
Court, as well as the amended complaint filed by the Station Commander
(Ibid., pp. 25-30).  The case was docketed as Civil Case
No. 2754.

On January 11,
1977, the Court of First Instance of La Union granted the writ of
preliminary injunction prayed for by petitioner and enjoined respondent
Municipal Judge from conducting the preliminary investigation he set for
January 13, 1977 (p. 3, June
17, 1977 Decision; Record, p. 61).

In the said Civil Case No. 2754, public respondents filed separate
Motions to Dismiss (pp. 3-4, Ibid.; Record,
pp. 61-62) while private respondents filed an Answer and Counterclaim with
Motion to Remand (Record, pp. 41-46).  These were opposed by
petitioner by filing a Reply and Opposition (Ibid., pp. 47-50). 
The Provincial Fiscal, on the other hand, in compliance with the Order of
the Court dated January 31, 1977, filed a Manifestation on February 11, 1977
stating (1) that it is the position of the public prosecution that the
respondent court can validly conduct the second stage of the preliminary
investigation to determine the identity and
participation of the private respondents who have not waived their rights; and
(2) that the public prosecution has chosen as a forum the Court of First
Instance to which the municipal court had elevated the records of Criminal Case
No. 11244.  Subsequently, the motions to dismiss having been denied
by the Court, public respondents filed their Answer (Ibid., pp.
51-54).

After hearing on the merits, the Court of First
Instance of La Union rendered a ruling (decision), dated June 17, 1977,
dismissing the petition; dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction of
January 12, 1977; and ordering the remand of Criminal Case No. 534 to the
Municipal Court for trial on the merits (Record, pp. 59-69).

A Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision was filed by
petitioner on August 20,
1977 (Ibid., pp. 70-74), but the same was denied on
August 22, 1977.

Hence, this petition (Ibid., pp. 14-24).

Private respondents, in compliance with the resolution of
January 4, 1978 of the First
Division of this Court (Ibid., p. 75) filed their Comment on February 14, 1978 (Ibid., pp.
89-90), while the Solicitor General filed his Comment on July 14, 1978 (Ibid., pp. 125-137).

In a Resolution dated July 19, 1978, the First Division of this Court resolved,
among others, to give due course to the petition; and to require the parties to
submit simultaneous memoranda within thirty (30) days from notice thereof
(Ibid., p. 139).  In compliance therewith, petitioner
filed her Memorandum on September 27,
1978 (Ibid., pp. 149-158).

In a Resolution dated June 13, 1979, the First Division of this Court resolved
to deny the motions of the Solicitor General for nineteenth, twentieth and
twenty first extensions of time totalling thirty (30)
days from May 16, 1979
within which to file memorandum; and to declare the case submitted for decision
(Ibid., p. 293).

The issues in this case are 
—

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE MUNICIPAL COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO RECALL THE
   RECORDS OF CRIMINAL CASE NO. 11244 IN ORDER TO CONDUCT A SECOND STAGE OF
   PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION, AFTER SAID CASE HAS BEEN ELEVATED TO THE COURT OF
   FIRST INSTANCE AND THE PROVINCIAL FISCAL IS ALREADY CONDUCTING THE PRELIMINARY
   INVESTIGATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE IDENTITIES AND PARTICIPATION OF
   THE “JOHN DOES” UPON THE REQUEST OF
   COMPLAINANT;

2. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CAN DISREGARD THE CHOICE OF FORUM
   MADE BY THE INVESTIGATING FISCAL FOR THE TRIAL OF THE CASE ON THE MERITS;
   and

3. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CAN REMAND THE CASE TO THE
   MUNICIPAL COURT FOR TRIAL ON THE MERITS.

The instant petition is without merit.

It is undisputed that a complaint for theft of personal properties
worth P9,880.00, allegedly committed in San Fernando,
La Union, was filed with the Municipal Court of San Fernando and docketed
therein as Criminal Case No. 11244.  Under the provisions of
Section 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, in relation to
Article 309(2) of the Revised Penal Code, the Municipal Court of San
Fernando and the Court of First Instance of La Union have concurrent
jurisdiction over the case.

As stated by Justice Barredo in
his concurring opinion, whenever a criminal complaint is filed in an inferior
court charging an offense within its concurrent jurisdiction with the court of
first instance, said inferior court should as a rule refrain from assuming
jurisdiction solely to conduct a preliminary examination and investigation and
should instead take cognizance thereof already for trial on the merits after
conducting the preliminary examination (Tabil v. Ong, 91 SCRA 451, July 16,
1979).  This principle is based on well-settled jurisprudence that
the accused in an offense falling within the concurrent jurisdiction of the
Inferior Courts and Courts of First Instance, is not
entitled to be heard in a preliminary
investigation.  (People v. Pable, 115
SCRA 707-708; July 30, 1982; People v. Abejuela and People vs.
Endan, 38 SCRA 324; March 31, 1971).  The reason is
that the ensuing trial on the merits takes place of the preliminary
investigation, without needless waste of duplication of time and effort. 
(Tabil v. Ong,
supra).  Hence, pursuant to the doctrine laid down in
said cases, the Municipal Court of San Fernando should have tried the case on
the merits.  On the contrary, however, respondent Municipal Judge
erroneously elevated the case to the Court of First Instance of La Union for
trial on the merits, and because of this error, petitioner now contends that the
Municipal Court of San Fernando has lost its jurisdiction over the case, and
accordingly, it is deprived of the authority to order the amendment of the
criminal complaint and to conduct the second stage of preliminary
investigation.

This contention is untenable as it is likewise well-settled that
upon filing of the case, the Municipal Court acquired jurisdiction over it to
the exclusion of the Court of First Instance, (People v. Pable, supra);
that the court which first acquires jurisdiction of a case retains it to the
exclusion of the other courts (People vs. Layno, 111
SCRA 20; Encarnacion vs. Baltazar and
Kayanan, 111 Phil. 459) and that jurisdiction once acquired subsists until
the case is completely decided (Roxas vs.
Sayoc, 100 Phil. 448; Tomasa C.
Viuda de Pamintuan vs. Tiglao, 53 Phil. 1, 4).

It has also been held that mere transmittal of the records of
criminal cases to the Court of First Instance without the filing of the
corresponding information, does not vest jurisdiction in said court. 
(Salcedo v.
Suarez, 80 SCRA 242; Oct. 28, 1977; Quinto v. Villaluz, 113 SCRA 180, March
29, 1982).

In the instant case while the Provincial Fiscal has expressed
preference for the Court of First Instance of La Union as the forum for the
trial of the case on the merits, no information has as yet been filed by him
while as previously stated the Municipal Court of San Fernando has already
acquired jurisdiction over the criminal case upon filing of the complaint
therein by Station Commander Galicano R. Leonen.

There appears no need to resolve the third issue, it being evident
from the foregoing that the Court of First Instance of La Union did not err in
remanding the case to the Municipal Court of San Fernando for trial on the
merits.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court RESOLVED to AFFIRM the
assailed decision.

Fernan, (Chairman), Alampay,
Gutierrez, Jr., Padilla, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ.,
concur.