QUIRICO ALMAJEN, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. PASCUAL VALERA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES.

In criminal Case No. 305, petitioner-appellant Quirico Alimajen was
charged with the crime of qualified theft in a complaint filed before
the Justice of the Peace Court of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo, by the Chief
of Police of the town. It appears that the accused was arrested upon
warrant issued by the Justice of the Peace Court, but was subsequently
released when his application for bail bond, dated December 14, 1957,
was approved. On December 23, 1957, he filed a motion waiving his right
to a preliminary investigation and asking that the case be certified
instead to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo for trial oh the
merits. The Justice of the Peace denied the motion, claiming that it
had already acquired original jurisdiction over the criminal case.
Defendant moved for a reconsideration of the order, but the motion was
likewise denied; whereupon, he filed with the Court of First Instance
of Iloilo a petition for a writ of preliminary injunction and
prohibition against the respondent Justice of the Peace. On February
19, 1958, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit. This dismissal
is now the subject of the instant appeal.

That the Justice of the Peace Court has concurrent jurisdiction with
the Court of First Instance of Iloilo in this case, by virtue of
section 87, subsection (c), No. 3 of the Judiciary Act of 1948
(Rep. Act 296), the amount involved in the criminal charge being only
P183.30, is not questioned. The main point of inquiry is whether or not
the respondent Justice of the Peace erred in refusing to forward the
criminal case to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo on the basis
that his court already acquired original jurisdiction over the same.
The answer, we believe, must be in the negative. The rule is that when
two or more courts have concurrent jurisdiction, the first to validly
acquire it takes it to the exclusion of the other or the rest (Valdez vs. Lucero, 76 Phil., 356; 42 Off. Gaz. No. 11, 2835; People vs. Livera, 94 Phil., 771; see also Lumpay, et al., vs. Hon. Moscoso, 105 Phil., 968; 58 Off. Gaz. [30] 5185).

While the choice of the court where to bring an action, where there
are two or more courts having concurrent s jurisdiction thereon, is a
matter of procedure and not jurisdiction, as suggested by the
appellant, the moment such choice has been exercised, the matter
becomes jurisdictional. Such choice is deemed made when the proper
complaint or information is filed with the court having jurisdiction
over the crime, and said court acquires jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant; from which time the right and power of the court to try
the accused attaches (see People vs. Blanco, 85 Phil., 296; 47 Off. Gaz., [7] 3425; Crisologo vs.
People, 94 Phil., 477; 50 Off. Gaz., [3] 1021). It is not for the
defendant to exercise that choice, which is lodged upon those who may
validly file or subscribe to the complaint or information under
sections 2 and 3 of Rule 106 of the Rules of Court.

The complaint in Criminal Case No. 305 was filed by the Chief of
Police, and the Justice of the Peace was able to place the accused
under its authority and control (jurisdiction) thru the coercive power
of arrest and in later allowing his release on bail. There is no
indication that the case was brought before the inferior court merely
for purposes of preliminary investigation as the appellant would tend
to imply in liking this case with that of Reñaria vs. Judge
Veluz, 91 Phil., 473. In fact, the lower court had already set the case
for hearing. Of course, the right to preliminary investigation, being
statutory, may be waived, but the fact that appellant manifested in the
Justice of the Peace Court a waiver of such right does not prove that
the complaint was filed therein only for that purpose and hot likewise
to try the case on the merits, which was for those who filed it to
determine, and for the lower court to appreciate.

Wherefore, the appeal should be dismissed and the case remanded to
the Justice of the Peace Court for the trial on the merits. Costs
against appellant.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.