THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. FELISA TE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

Appeal, by the provincial fiscal against the order in Criminal Case
No. 113 of the court of first instance of Batangas dismissing the case
for lack of jurisdiction.

This is a libel case commenced in the justice of the peace court of
Balayan, Batangas, upon a complaint, filed on March 4, 1955, by Edward
Field, an American citizen working at Clark Airbase in Pampanga who
gave his residence as 1357 Kalimbas Street, Santa Cruz, Manila. Said
complaint is based on an alleged libelous article published in “Bagong
Buhay,” a Tagalog newspaper, in its issue of August 12, 1954. The
defendants are Felisa Te, Ricardo Chua, Emilia Te, all residents of
Bautista, Pangasinan; Felicisimo Macalinao, an NBI agent; and Juliano
Centeno, reporter of the “Bagong Buhay,” the latter two being residents
of Manila.

After the corresponding preliminary investigation, the case was
elevated by the justice of the peace to the court of first instance of
Batangas, Balayan Branch and the provincial fiscal filed, on July 8,
1955, the corresponding information.

During the hearing and after the prosecution had rested its case,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the court of
first instance of Batangas had no jurisdiction over the Subject matter,
it appearing that as early as May 18, 1955, or prior to the filing on
July 8, 1955, of the information in the present case, another
information for libel in Criminal Case No. 31319 had already been
filed, by the City Fiscal of Manila with the court of first instance of
Manila, based on the same alleged libelous publication, and that,
pursuant to Republic Act No. 1289 amending the third paragraph of Art.
360 of the Revised Penal Code, the court of first instance of Manila
had already acquired sole and exclusive jurisdiction over the case. The
lower court granted the motion not on this ground but on that the case
should have been filed with the court of first instance of the province
or city where the complainant or any of the accused resides, that is to
say, either in Pangasinan or Manila. The government appealed, assigning
the following errors:

1. The trial court erred in holding that Republic
   Act No. 1289, approved on June 15, 1955, is applicable to the instant
   case.

2. The lower court erred in
   holding that after the enactment of Republic Act No. 1289 on June 15,
   1955, the court of first instance of Batangas where none of the parties
   is residing has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the ease where
   the information was filed in the court of first instance of Batangas
   after the approval of said Republic Act, that is, on July 8, 1956,
   because the parties, were residents of Manila and Pangasinan, but not
   in Batangas, while the alleged libelous article was published and
   printed in the City of Manila notwithstanding the fact that said
   libelous article was also published and circulated in Balayan, Batangas.

3. The lower court erred in holding that this action for libel should have
   been brought in the court of first instance of the province where the
   complainant or any of the accused resides.

4. The trial court erred in dismissing the case.

The issues involved in this appeal rest solely on the construction of Republic Act No. 1289, which reads as follows:

“The criminal and civil action for damages in cases
of written defamations as provided for in this chapter, shall be filed
simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance of the
province or city where any of the accused or any of the offended
parties resides at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided,
however, That where the libel is published, circulated, displayed, or
exhibited in a province or city wherein neither the offender nor the
offended party resides the civil and criminal actions may be brought in
the court of first instance thereof; Provided, further, That the civil
action shall be filed in the same court where the criminal action is
filed and vice versa: Provided, furthermore, That the court where the
criminal action or civil action for damages is first filed, shall
acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts: And provided,
finally. That this amendment shall not apply to cases of written
defamations, the civil and/or criminal actions to which, have been
filed in court at the time of the effectivity of this law.”

1. The question that must first be determined is whether or
   not the law above quoted is applicable to the instant case. There is no
   dispute that the complaint was presented with the justice of the peace
   court of Balayan, Batangas, on March 4, 1955, before the passage of
   Republic Act 1289, and that the information was subscribed by the
   fiscal and filed with the court of first instance of Batangas on July
   8th of the same year, or after the effectivity of said Act. The
   government now contends that its final proviso which states

“that this amendment shall not apply to cases of written defamations, the civil and/or criminal actions to which, have been filed in court at the time of the effectivity of this law,”

takes the present case out of the operation of said Act, inasmuch
as, before its enactment on June 15, 1955, the complaint in this case
had already been filed with the justice of the peace court of Balayan
which “is but an extension of the court of first instance insofar as
offenses originally triable therein are concerned,” and that upon the
filing of such complaint “the machinery for the administration of
criminal justice has been set in operation.” In other words, that
Republic Act 1289 does not apply because the complaint had already been
filed at the time of its enactment.

The contention is not well taken. The phrase “have been filed in
court” as employed in the proviso, contemplates of the filing of the
criminal and/or civil action with the court of competent jurisdiction,
that is to say, court which has the power to try and decide it.
Certainly the justice of the peace court of Balayan where the complaint
was filed was not the proper court, as it could not have tried” and
decided the case, it being cognizable and triable only by the court of
first instance. In fact, the justice of the peace merely conducted, as
it was his ,duty, the preliminary investigation whose purpose was to
determine whether or not there were reasonable grounds for proceeding
formally against the accused (People vs. Peji Bautista, G.R. 45739, April 25, 1939; U.S. vs. Yutuico, 34 Phil., 209; People vs.
Medted, 68 Phil., 485). The filing of the complaint in this case for
purposes of preliminary investigation by the justice of the peace
cannot be said to be the commencement of the criminal action, as the
said complaint could as well be lodged with the provincial fiscal
himself who, under Republic Act 732, could also conduct such
preliminary investigation preparatory to the filing of the formal
charge or information before the competent court. The information in
this case having been filed on July 8, 1955, or after Republic Act 1289
had become operative, the present case necessarily comes under its
provisions and must be governed thereby.

2. Coming now to the question of jurisdiction, the
   record shows that as early as May 18, 1955, an information for libel
   was filed with the court of first instance of Manila by the City Fiscal
   in Criminal Case No. 31319 against defendants Felisa Te, Ricardo Chua
   Felicisimo Macalinao and Juliano Centeno, based on the same libelous
   publication. In contrast, the information in this case was filed with
   the court of first instance of Batangas on July 8, 1955, or two months
   after the filing of the Manila case:

Considering the third proviso of Republic Act 1289 which states that

“the court where the criminal action or civil action for damages is first filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts,”

it is clear that the court of first instance of Manila which first
acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter, excluded any and all
other courts of equal category. The court first instance of Batangas,
therefore, did not have jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the
present case. With this pronouncement, it becomes unnecessary for us to
pass upon the question raised in the third assignment of error. Order
affirmed.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.
Padilla and Montemayor, JJ., took no part.